Slashdot Mirror


Latest Top 500 Supercomputer List Released

chrb writes "BBC News is reporting on the release of the June 2010 Top 500 Supercomputer list. Notable changes include a second Chinese supercomputer in the top ten. A graphical display enables viewing of the supercomputer list by speed, operating system, application, country, processor, and manufacturer."

130 comments

  1. Computers keep getting faster by wallyhall · · Score: 1

    Computers still seem to be getting exponentially faster by the year ... when will Silicon give way? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TOP500-2008.svg

    --
    I think therefore I am... a Linux geek.
    1. Re:Computers keep getting faster by somersault · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think power requirements are probably the main problem, rather than the hardware. It must be pretty trivial to add more cores to a system that's already using tens of thousands of them, but you're going to need a lot of power.

      These systems are only really getting "faster" for parallel tasks too - if you gave them a sequential workload then I assume they would fare worse than a high end gaming machine!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Computers keep getting faster by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These systems are only really getting "faster" for parallel tasks too - if you gave them a sequential workload then I assume they would fare worse than a high end gaming machine!

      I doubt it. A good fraction of them use POWER6 processors, which are still a lot faster than any x86 chip for most sequential workloads. On top of that, they typically have a lot more I/O bandwidth. They might only be a bit faster, but it would have to be a really high-end gaming rig to be faster.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Computers keep getting faster by Entropius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Parallel tasks are the whole point of using a supercomputer. The gains made in speed for sequential tasks really haven't been that great; Moore's Law for sequential tasks fell apart a while back.

      Being able to parallelize a task is a prerequisite for putting it on a supercomputer.

    4. Re:Computers keep getting faster by Sique · · Score: 2, Informative

      "A good fraction" in this case means: Less than 10%. In fact, only 42 out of 500 use POWER.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    5. Re:Computers keep getting faster by cdpage · · Score: 1

      ...that's not nothing to grip at dude.

      What i wonder is, what % of flops they are making verses all the others... if it wasn't for the top 5 having close to 1mil cores, they might make up more then 10% of the computational contribution, no?

      I would like to see this graphic chart to include that...

      That, and perhaps a distribution chart too... i'd like to see how the PS3 is fairing now in distribution

    6. Re:Computers keep getting faster by anss123 · · Score: 1

      I would like to see this graphic chart to include that...

      They got 18% of the performance: http://www.top500.org/overtime/list/35/procfam

    7. Re:Computers keep getting faster by anss123 · · Score: 1

      Looking at that chart I see that Power and Opteron is about equal in performance and number of systems. Curious.

    8. Re:Computers keep getting faster by wagnerrp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Parallel tasks are the whole point of using a supercomputer.

      Well it is now. The original supercomputers were based around a single very fast processor, and had a number of co-processors whose sole purpose was to offload IO and memory prefetch, so the CPU could churn away without interruption. Modern out-of-order CPUs are effectively an old style supercomputer on a chip. Heavy use of parallel processing didn't really take off until the late 80s. This paradigm shift is what caused the supercomputer market crash in the 90s, as development devolved from custom CPUs, to throwing as many generic cores at the problem as you can and using custom interconnects to mitigate parallel overhead.

    9. Re:Computers keep getting faster by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you could just give them multiple sequential workloads. It won't speed up any individual sequential workload very much, but you still get more work done overall.

      I wouldn't worry too much. We've been pretty good at finding things to help us keep up with the effects of Moore's law.

    10. Re:Computers keep getting faster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Heavy use of parallel processing didn't really take off until the late 80s

              Only if want to ignore SIMD/vector units of late 70's and early 80s.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray_X-MP

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray-2


      This paradigm shift is what caused the supercomputer market crash in the 90s,

            The bigger paradigm shift was in rewriting code to be extremely parallel and blowing off scalar execution time ( super computers used to be tops in bother scalar and parallel computations. Now it is solely parallel. ) For example, Seymour Cray eventually got into a MHz war. The quest for Hz lead to GaAr chips, whereas if had access to higher CMOS speeds perhaps could have stayed more mainstream.

            A more minor factor was that foundry-less and foundries-for-hire concepts weren't adopted by the supercomputer vendors fast enough. Some had progressed from individual circuits , to ICs , to dense packaged ICs. The next step was to collapse ICs into smaller packages with process improvements.

            The crash was more so too many vendors piling in (after the success of the Cray-1 ) and an overall recession rather than some specific technology. The real SuperComputer market was never large enough for several vendors.

    11. Re:Computers keep getting faster by drachenstern · · Score: 1

      Actually, having been involved in a fair amount of work with the CERN and Fermilab parallel computing groups, I can attest that they are using the supercomputers at their disposal for highly sequential data processing, mostly parsing a data set looking for a given pattern. For the amount of data they collect, this sequential processing is paramount.

      Consider trying run a SELECT on a non-indexable 2TB database table. You have to look at every row, and it takes time. But if we can parse the table by several machines at once, we can parallelize the job. So they break the data into manageable chunks and send them out as jobs to individual processors. They do this for hundreds of thousands of dataset chunks and aggregate the results to form a single meaningful whole.

      There are quite a lot of frameworks around just the scheduling to return the data in a timely manner. Workflows, efficient data transfer, and being able to detect hung processes on remote systems are all just part of the areas of pure CS research going on.

      So while it's nice to have supercomputers that do parallel computation for things like energy research, not all large problems need parallel interconnected processors on quad infiniband interconnects.

      tl:dr: SETI@Home, Folding@Home, BOINC are all super computers that are not parallel.

      --
      2^3 * 31 * 647
  2. June?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Holy crap, the supercomputers are so fast they're in the future!

    1. Re:June?! by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      It's like an early Christmas ...

      And speaking of that, a nice present would be an account on a supercomputer for running whatever I want. A Top 5000 would do, presumably.

      Hopefully the universe won't mind if we call May June and thereby manipulate Moore's Law in our favor. Year over year if Moore's Law holds while the calendar grows shorter, the light speed barrier shall be overcome.

      At any rate, this is the age of the Internet and global news updated by the minute. Supercomputers are expensive to upgrade so keeping a monthly update frequency may be reasonable, at least as far as publishing the theoretical speed is concerned, as running a benchmark every month could be aggravating. Technological improvements take time, but the notion that it takes a supercomputer to improve supercomputing could to be more relevant in that new breakthroughs might be coming faster as more and more clock cycles exist every second, while the law of diminishing returns counters.

      It would be inspiring to see that technology is usable to advance the boundaries monthly. Indeed, businesses may feel a greater need to take more risks (not like BP, please) to achieve breakthroughs if computing is seen to be on a good pace for competitors to use in gaining an edge. A real stimulus package would be businesses having more incentive to get their own supercomputers. Personal computers have the speed of past supercomputers but businesses do not tend to think "Let's run this for a couple weeks on this great idea" - programmers, this is your cue to develop software that makes tomorrow's PCs yield answers that rival the $#|+ you can get from hired experts.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  3. A 2nd "Chinese".... by mtmra70 · · Score: 1

    Looks like a 2nd NSCS supercomputer located in China is in the top 10. Does that make it "Chinese"?

    1. Re:A 2nd "Chinese".... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends upon the opinion of the Chinese government on any given day, if it is located on the mainland, wouldn't you suppose?

    2. Re:A 2nd "Chinese".... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It is a supercomputer with Chinese characteristics.

    3. Re:A 2nd "Chinese".... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Interestingly, the Chinese machines don't seem to be using Chinese CPUs yet. I was hoping to see at least one Loongson in the top 500.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:A 2nd "Chinese".... by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

      Funny every CPU I see on that list is manufactured in china...

    5. Re:A 2nd "Chinese".... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Actually, a lot of them aren't. Take a look at where Intel, AMD, and IBM have fabs - most of them are outside of China. None of them are designed in China. A few are designed in India and Japan, but that's about as close as they get. In contrast, Loongson is both designed and manufactured in China.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  4. Linux by B5_geek · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ya for Linux!

    Seriously, if this doesn't make every PHB take notice I can't imagine what would. (Hey boss, its free too!)

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    1. Re:Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      All our admins and all of our users only know Microsoft systems. Training isn't free.

    2. Re:Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And MS training is free?

    3. Re:Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya for Linux!

      Seriously, if this doesn't make every PHB take notice I can't imagine what would. (Hey boss, its free too!)

      Depends on the job you're doing.

      Lots of small single- to quad-CPU OS images working separately in parallel doesn't say anything about the scalability of single large images with tens or hundreds of CPUs.

    4. Re:Linux by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All our admins and all of our users only know Microsoft systems. Training isn't free.

      So your users can't use Linux on the server? Or is it that all the users use super computers on the desktop? Our biz has all MS on the desktop and all Linux on the server. Obviously it is completely seamless. As for the admins, any admin worth their salt is always learning new things to just keep up with technology as it changes. Learning Linux by installing it on one system to start is trivial, and in certain situations, much easier to setup than Windows, such as DNS servers, web servers, etc.

      If your admins can only work on a server if it uses a mouse, you need new admins.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    5. Re:Linux by staalmannen · · Score: 1

      The weird thing is that there are several entries in the statistics page [URL] http://www.top500.org/stats/list/35/os [/URL] that actually ALSO are linux, not just the top 405, but also the RedHat, CentOS CNL, SLES, (CellOS?) etc entries.... Looking at it that way UNIX is already outcompeted with a few entries of AIX and opensolaris. I wonder what happened to Plan9 on the Blue Gene....

    6. Re:Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate that argument. The users don't know shit.

      Most of the Win users I have come across think the H drive (network share) is on their computer. Users are mindless drones who need to be spoon fed their world. I would love to see a site where the workstation was a locked down OS where the user had a set of icons (office, mail, web browser, file manager, custom apps) to pick from. No changing anything else. I believe that would cut down on help desk greatly.

    7. Re:Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      plan 9 on blue gene is a research project, so
      wouldn't show up in the top500 production
      numbers.

    8. Re:Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ya for Linux!

      Seriously, if this doesn't make every PHB take notice I can't imagine what would. (Hey boss, its free too!)

      How is this relevant to the environment most PHBs control? We're talking supercomputers here.. Ferraris.. Lamborghinis... not super reliable diesel trucks. Most PHBs want uptime, not go-fast-real-quick.

    9. Re:Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful


      If your admins can only work on a server if it uses a mouse, you need new admins.

      Agreed. Often times you can't count on morons simply being canned or replaced though. The fact is there's a lot of fools out their that think "system administration" simply means knowing which button to click in the right order. Any understanding beyond that simply doesn't exist, and is lost on them.

      This limitation isn't simply one of "GUI vs CLI" or "Windows vs Linux". It's really one of wanting to understand something beyond the UI presented to you. We all know real systems, Windows or Linux screw up in ways that pointy-clicky, or even "type in the magic command" knowledge won't help you. People unwilling to learn the system beyond the basics are fools, and will always remain fools until they expand beyond basics.

    10. Re:Linux by Black+Art · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In my experience Windows admins require *MUCH* more training than Linux admins. There is much more "black magic" that they need to know to be good at their jobs.

      A Windows admin needs to know all the secret registry hacks to make things run well. They need to know all the non-intuitive places that Microsoft hides the settings for whatever services need to be configured. They also need to know how to recover things when it all goes horribly wrong.

      Most Linux systems have text files to configure things. The files are in a predictable place. Updates are pretty easy and clear.

      But Microsoft has scammed people into believing that leaving it harder than just putting up with the same old crap. In this case I just wish that people did get what they pay for...

         

      --
      "Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
    11. Re:Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Linux operating systems cannot run the software that people want and/or need.

    12. Re:Linux by burnin1965 · · Score: 1

      All our admins and all of our users only know Microsoft systems. Training isn't free.

      I guess you are pretty well !#@%ed, but then again the world still needs ditch diggers. ;)

    13. Re:Linux by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've done systems administration on both platforms for years and I don't think that there is any real appreciable difference between the amount of knowledge and training needed on one vs. the other when comparing systems that perform similar functions. Compare Active Directory to OpenLDAP+Kerberos 5, for example. They are very, very similar in a lot of ways; so much so, in fact, that OpenLDAP+Kerberos 5 can be used to host the directory portion of a Windows domain.

    14. Re:Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is just not true.All your needs as a typical windows user are cared for in Linux

    15. Re:Linux by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      From my experience (mainly Linux) it is much easier to setup Linux boxen if you are using them for dedicated tasks, as it is pretty easy to only install the software you need for that task, thus reducing the amount of maintenance in the long run, and narrow down the possible causes of problems. Overall, I would tend to agree that the learning curve is likely equal on both platforms, although finding answers to common Linux issues online is pretty damn easy and fast.

      I'm not against Windows on the server per se, but if you need a web server or a file sharing server, it certainly is easy to do on Linux in a matter of a hour or two. Not having to deal with licensing issues, being able to move over data and configurations rapidly via sftp, and the ability to easily clone systems to make a testing platform are just bonuses.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    16. Re:Linux by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Somewhere in Utah the Linux boxes are been counted.
      A nice round inflation adjusted number would be $1000?
      Darl McBride is handed a list of the naughty and very naughty.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    17. Re:Linux by evilviper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think that there is any real appreciable difference between the amount of knowledge and training needed on one vs. the other when comparing systems that perform similar functions.

      I'm afraid I'd have to completely disagree with you there. My preferred example isn't Active Directory, but CIFS...

      With Windows, you do all the user management, then click-through the painful server setup wizard to turn on file sharing, and everyone's happy and thinks it's oh so easy to do... Right up until some guy tries to upload a a big file, and for no reason everything hangs-up at about the 2GB mark.

      Congratulations, you've been screwed by Microsoft. No way in hell will you be able to determine what's going wrong by examining the OS, logs, included help documentation, registry settings, etc. You are screwed. You must now find external sources of information to determine why this would possibly happen. After either buying some 3rd party books on the subject (Microsoft's books are crap), or scouring Microsoft's website for every possible keyword that might be in the description of this problem, you just might find the answer (or maybe not, it really does depend on luck).

      The software from this the largest and most profitable company in the world, somehow consistently determines that your gigabit network is ACTUALLY a slow, high lag (most likely dial-up) link, and dynamically switched to some ancient version of the protocol to give you slightly less overhead, which seems to work fine at first blush, but just doesn't allow UPLOADING (downloading is okay) files over 2GBs. Armed with this knowledge, you now get to delve deep into the bowels of the registry, and find a half-dozen irrationally named keys and change some completely arbitrary DWORD values to some other completely arbitrary DWORD values that only those with the source code, and entire debugging teams, can determine for you.

      You DO have to be just as intelligent as a Unix admin to setup a reliable Windows network, since the fundamental laws of computing still apply. Then, on top of all that, you have to memorize the magic Microsoft spell-book, learn all the magic incantations if you want to do anything other than the very basic default settings (eg., for when they perform badly, are terribly insecure, or just completely blow up on you, like the above).

      There's really no debate about it. Samba has a config file that stays under 1K even in the complex setups. With Windows, you've got a 20MB+ registry to look through, and absolutely no way to know what each value might do... Even if you had to look through the full Samba source code, it wouldn't come close to being as cumbersome as the Windows registry, AND you'd actually know everything there is to know about it, rather than some anecdotes here and there, you get from the Microsoft spell book...

      I say this as someone who knows it all extremely well... Admin for over 100 Windows systems for a lot of years, from NT4.0 to 2000, and 2003. More recently, doing everything I can to get positions as a Unix admin, even taking a pay cut, rather than put up with the nightmares that a Windows admin position brings. I still occasionally get dragged back into the Windows world, when my current employer has something that the idiot MCSEs can't figure out, on our dwindling number of Windows systems, or when a former employer or someone else who knows me by reputation gets desperate and throws enough money at me to come back and fix some show-stopper on the Windows systems I long ago told them they needed to get rid of.

      In short, I agree with the GP. Windows Admin is inherently a job where you can only peek through the keyhole and turn one screw at a time, while a Unix admin can strip out entire components and work with them in isolation. A Linux (or BSD, or OpenSolaris) Admin in particular can get the blueprints to everything, and KNOW exactly how everything works, with a fairly modest amount of effort... Even if you were unbelievably lucky

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    18. Re:Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny that people are still trotting that old line out, given that something close to 90% of the software most people spend most time using nowadays is running on Linux, even if they're accessing it via Internet Explorer.

      And congratulations for remembering the "want" bit in there. The main reason people stick with Microsoft isn't that the alternatives wouldn't meet all their needs just fine -- it's that they don't like change. It's bitten Microsoft, too -- look at all the whining about Vista (a perfectly good OS that improved on XP in just about every way) and Office 2007 (the first truly innovative UI I've ever seen Microsoft produce).

    19. Re:Linux by evilviper · · Score: 1

      All our admins and all of our users only know Microsoft systems. Training isn't free.

      So... you don't have internet access? I don't know of any Microsoft routers, switches, firewalls, etc.

      And I'd respond to your statement by saying that admins aren't free either. If you're using Windows on your servers, the overwhelming majority of studies say you have a lot more admins than you would need if you switched to some non-Windows server operating system.

      Honestly, for the cost of a couple idiot MCSEs, you could get a pretty good Linux admin who can install and manage a good 100 servers.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    20. Re:Linux by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      I've never did Windows admin work, but plenty of Solaris and Linux, mostly Linux and some other UNIX OSes over the years. I've also worked as a Windows developer for a while, and I kinda agree that Windows is harder to develop on and I would assume to admin as well.

      I've always held high regards for Windows developers. They don't have the internals (source), nor the POSIX standards (yes, I know there are some POSIX stuff for Windows). When I was a Windows developer, I felt like I always had to reinvent the wheel. As a kind favor to a friend this weekend, I reinstalled windows and office on a virus infested computer, and it doesn't even seem as though Microsoft even uses their own APIs for their OS. Office 2007 (I think) looked nothing like any other programs in Windows.

    21. Re:Linux by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      CIFS? Okay, well...

      determines that your gigabit network is ACTUALLY a slow, high lag (most likely dial-up) link, and dynamically switched to some ancient version of the protocol to give you slightly less overhead, which seems to work fine at first blush, but just doesn't allow UPLOADING (downloading is okay) files over 2GBs.

      The type of problem you describe can just as easily happen with Samba as it can with Windows Server. (Not sure about the specific problem you're describing, but protocol negotiation problems in general between a Samba server and a Windows client are found in abundance in the Samba FAQs and on the Samba mailing lists, where I'm a regular) Part of the problem is that some aspects of the protocol can be controlled by the client as well as the server.

      And, let's face it, the only reason you'd be serving CIFS from Unix as opposed to, say, NFS v4 is that you have some Microsoft clients. CIFS is simply a headache you don't need in all-Unix environment, even though it is (obviously) possible to setup CIFS within one.

      Anyway, I've never had any formal Microsoft training at all; I simply have lots of job experience. And finding these magickal Microsoft incantations you speak of is actually quite easy, especially in regard to CIFS. Oddly enough, the easiest way to find them is on the Samba Users' mailing list, however. ;)

    22. Re:Linux by evilviper · · Score: 1

      The type of problem you describe can just as easily happen with Samba as it can with Windows Server.

      Nope. I happen to know the described problem cannot happen with Samba.

      (Not sure about the specific problem you're describing, but protocol negotiation problems in general between a Samba server and a Windows client are found in abundance in the Samba FAQs and on the Samba mailing lists, where I'm a regular) Part of the problem is that some aspects of the protocol can be controlled by the client as well as the server.

      Nearly every protocol on earth involves negotiation of appropriate protocol settings between server and client... The same criticisms being made of Windows on the server applies to Windows clients to a much lesser degree, so you're not helping yourself here. There's still no denying all the criticisms. You don't even seem to try, just handwaving them away.

      And, let's face it, the only reason you'd be serving CIFS from Unix as opposed to, say, NFS v4 is that you have some Microsoft clients.

      I've seen plenty of unix-only networks using CIFS. Before NFSv4 stablized, NFS was pretty damn crufty, and plenty of people decided Samba looked like the best option at the time (wasn't me...).

      finding these magickal Microsoft incantations you speak of is actually quite easy, especially in regard to CIFS. Oddly enough, the easiest way to find them is on the Samba Users' mailing list, however.

      It's not my fault you didn't comprehend, or choose to ignore the point of my post...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    23. Re:Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah man AD is a really bad example for this, because AD IS LDAP+Kerberos+Vendor Specific extensions. Infact its so close to LDAP and the Netware Information and Login Directory that back when it first came out you could use netware clients to authenticate against AD with out any issues, and currently if you know where to point the tools you dont even have to use AD tools to admin AD, you could strictly use LDAP tools to change AD, because at its heart AD is LDAP and it is pretty much identical to LDAP till you get to forrest level 2008R2 where they renamed some of the location container values. CIFS, Log Shipping, Remote Event Logs, IIS, and just about anything else are great examples. My preferred thing at this point because its so new is Hyper-V, Its practically Xen for Windows, very pissy, and a lot of the options are not available.

  5. By Processor by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The view by processor is quite interesting. AMD has the top spot, but the majority of the top 500 have Intel chips. There are still two SPARC64 machines in the top 100, and a third one down at 383. All three SPARC64 machines are in Japan, which isn't entirely surprising. IBM makes a good showing, but it's interesting to see how far behind x86 they are, in a market that was traditionally owned by non-commodity hardware.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    1. Re:By Processor by pwilli · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would have expected more AMD-based systems in the top-100, because super computers are usually built with cheap and moderately fast Processors, the market segment where AMD gives lots of bang for the buck.

    2. Re:By Processor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What's more interesting is is that the Chinese supercomputer is second overall with only 55680 cores (Intel) and 1.271 peta FLOPS.
      That's almost 170000 cores less than the number 1 (AMD), and only 500 tera FLOPS less.
      And it's 70000 cores less than the number 3 (IBM) and 200 tera FLOPS faster.

    3. Re:By Processor by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's especially interesting for two reasons. Firstly, because at that sort of scale interconnect throughput and latency can make a much bigger difference than processor speed. With HyperTransport, AMD has had a huge advantage over Intel here (IBM also uses HyperTransport). It looks like QPI might have eliminated that advantage. Beyond that, you have the supporting circuitry - you don't just plug a few thousand processors into a board and have them work, you need a lot of stuff to make them talk to each other without massive overhead.

      The other interesting thing is that the Chinese are using Intel processors at all. I would have expected them to use Loongson 2F chips, or Loongson 3 if they were out in time. I'm not sure if Loongson wasn't up to the job, or if they had some other reason for using a foreign-designed chip.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:By Processor by Entropius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're Intel you have more money to spend on marketing, which means "we'll give you a cut rate on a lot of 10000 processors just so we can have the bragging rights."

    5. Re:By Processor by maxume · · Score: 1

      It's quite likely that they can offer a hefty discount and still make a profit on the transaction.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:By Processor by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The other interesting thing is that the Chinese are using Intel processors at all. I would have expected them to use Loongson 2F chips, or Loongson 3 if they were out in time. I'm not sure if Loongson wasn't up to the job, or if they had some other reason for using a foreign-designed chip.

      Loongson has great TDP but isn't all that ballsy. If you're trying to do the job with less cores, it's not in the running. So what if something else takes twice the power? It's the people's money. Same as here.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:By Processor by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wikipedia shows the highest performing Loongson system before April scored 1 teraflop peak, and "and about 350 GFLOPS measured by linpack in Hefei". Sounds like they are focusing on performance/watt more than being the fastest, from a read of the rest of the article. Still pretty fast stuff, considering their newest system has 80 quads and is claimed to have a peak around 1 teraflop.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    8. Re:By Processor by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 3, Informative

      What's even more interesting is that the nVidia chips that made Nebulae so fast seem to have escaped your notice.

    9. Re:By Processor by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      The flash thingy is really neat: There is a demo of this free library.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    10. Re:By Processor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you're building a cluster you have to worry about everything, which includes the chipset. At the moment AMD chipsets don't give the same performance as Intel chipsets do, which is a real problem if you're building a machine that's doing lots of I/O.

    11. Re:By Processor by stevel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      System and component vendors don't make money on these "lighthouse account" supercomputer sales. My experience, having worked in the past for a vendor that did this a lot, is that they're a money-loser. The motivation is bragging rights, though that can be fleeting. I know of several times that my employer declined to bid on a supercomputer deal as it would just be too expensive.

      Typically, these systems are actually sold by system vendors (Dell, HP, IBM) and not processor vendors, though the processor vendor will support the bid. That #1 "AMD" system is actually a Cray. Software also plays a large part in success or failure.

    12. Re:By Processor by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      "and about 350 GFLOPS measured by linpack in Hefei".

      Ouch. Most new desktop computers score 35-70gflops, right? That's only ~5-10x faster.

      I suppose if it only used 500 watts, it might be worth bragging about - but I can't find any hard power consumption figures.

  6. How about a direct link... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Informative

    How about a direct link to the actual site - or even the actual list?

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:How about a direct link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the author was afraid we might slashdot it.. Would be a shame.. :)

  7. For the lazy by uburoy · · Score: 0, Redundant
  8. SETI@HOME has 3 million or so nodes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Make the definition of "computer" just a bit looser and it probably could make the list.

    The defintiion is already pretty damn loose.

    1. Re:SETI@HOME has 3 million or so nodes... by dingen · · Score: 1

      Yeah, most "supercomputers" are distributed systems, just like SETI@Home. The only real difference between a traditional supercomputer and a network like SETI@Home is how spread out the nodes are and the amount of bandwith between them.

      I just can't stop thinking about a beowulf cluster of those!

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    2. Re:SETI@HOME has 3 million or so nodes... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not even remotely true. The big difference is not the bandwidth between the nodes, it's the latency. Nodes in a supercomputer can exchange data in well under a millisecond. Nodes in SETI@Home can exchange information in a few hundred milliseconds. Don't think that's important? A single 2GHz core runs 200,000,000 cycles in the time that it takes to send a message between two relatively close SETI nodes. It executes closer to 200,000 instructions in the time that it takes to exchange data between two supercomputer nodes. This means that for things that are not embarrassingly parallel problems, a pair of supercomputer nodes will be up to 100 times faster than a pair of SETI nodes with identical processors. In practice, they won't spend all of their time communicating, so they'll probably only be ten times faster. Of course, when you scale this up to more than two nodes, the delays are increased a lot on a SETI-like system, so something using a few hundred nodes can be far more than only two orders of magnitude faster on a supercomputer.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:SETI@HOME has 3 million or so nodes... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      can seti@home run linpack?

    4. Re:SETI@HOME has 3 million or so nodes... by compro01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're gonna open it up like that, Folding@Home would almost certainly take first place.

      http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=osstats

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  9. LINPACK by ProdigyPuNk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think this is the first benchmarking article I've read in years where the organizers actually know what their benchmark program does: http://www.top500.org/project/linpack. Refreshing to see real statistics (as good as they can make them), instead of the normal crap that is most hardware articles anymore.

    I wonder what kind of score these beasts would get on 3DMark ?

    1. Re:LINPACK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did "anymore" start to mean "these days"?

    2. Re:LINPACK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like any statistic, it only measures what it measures and it's open to abuse. There's been at least one top 10 supercomputer built around LINPACK dick-measuring to such an extent that it was nearly useless for getting any work done in the real world. Most of the time it's not taken to that much of an extreme, but there is obviously a stressing of LINPACK performance that wouldn't be there if it were not the ruler for performance.

    3. Re:LINPACK by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      I guess ACs don't like to name names.

    4. Re:LINPACK by asvravi · · Score: 1
      Linpack is no benchmark. Let me know when any of them can begin to manage Adobe Flash.

      - Steve J

    5. Re:LINPACK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The day you failed English?

    6. Re:LINPACK by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      When did "anymore" start to mean "these days"?

      There are two answers to that.

      1. In standard English, it doesn't mean that. Anyone using it in that sense in formal writing is asking for trouble.

      2. In many American dialects, that sense has been common for a very long time. A quick Google shows up this paper from 1975 that says it attracted widespread attention in the 1930s, and it's bound to have been around for many years before that.

  10. Should Say "Top 500 Publicly-Acknowledged Supers" by cshbell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The list should more accurately be called, "Top 500 publicly-acknowledged supercomputers." You can go right on thinking that the US NSA, British MI6, and even some private industries (AT&T?) don't have vastly larger supers that are not publicly disclosed.

  11. Cores by frostfreek · · Score: 1

    I wish the graphic has a "By Cores". Wow, a computer with over 120,000 cores! Phenomenal.

    1. Re:Cores by frostfreek · · Score: 1

      Oops I meant 220,000

  12. Food? What food? by hcpxvi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Of the UK entries in this list, the first few are Hector (the national supercomputing facility), ECMWF, Universities, financial institutions etc. But there are also some labelled "Food industry". I wonder what I am eating that requires a supercomputer?

    1. Re:Food? What food? by Zembar · · Score: 1

      Calculating the caloric density of turkey twizzlers?

    2. Re:Food? What food? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Simulations of chemical processes? Estimations of future harvests and researching chemicals used for agriculture? I can't know if that's it, but there you go - some examples where it might be worthwile.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    3. Re:Food? What food? by tivoKlr · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe they're using it to determine why anyone would eat Haggis.

      --
      Ocean is land, covered with water.
    4. Re:Food? What food? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's quite nice (like a meaty rice), and contains less unpleasant animal parts than an average beef burger.

    5. Re:Food? What food? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course genetic modified food!

    6. Re:Food? What food? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because it's delicious, seriously! Don't knock it till you've tried it. It's not conceptually much different from a big sausage, anyway.

    7. Re:Food? What food? by DeadboltX · · Score: 1

      IATOOMA but maybe safety analysis for things like disease in foods?

    8. Re:Food? What food? by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      It's not what you are eating, but how they figure out how to sell their food to you. It takes some serious crunching to digest the enormous platter-fulls of data on consumer buying trends for pizza, based on age, geographical location, typical Google search histories, and reaction to percentage of red in existing pizza ads!

      On the other hand, I must admit to being curious about what the 'perfect' pizza, matched exactly to me by one of the world's fastest computers, would actually taste like...mmmm...pizza...

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    9. Re:Food? What food? by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      I wonder what I am eating that requires a supercomputer?

      Doesn't the fast food industry use supercomputers to count the calories of its products, and to annually calculate the number of clogged arteries of its patrons?

    10. Re:Food? What food? by et764 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One guy I used to work with that used to work in supercomputing claimed he did one project involving aerodynamic simulations of Pringles chips. Apparently they were originally shaped like wings, and would become airborne when traveling along high speed conveyor belts. They used a simulation to find a shape that wouldn't generate so much lift.

    11. Re:Food? What food? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the same argument I gave my girlfriend!

  13. Re:Should Say "Top 500 Publicly-Acknowledged Super by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The list should more accurately be called, "Top 500 publicly-acknowledged supercomputers." You can go right on thinking that the US NSA, British MI6, and even some private industries (AT&T?) don't have vastly larger supers that are not publicly disclosed.

    Some of the soho vfx houses in London have renderfarms that put the bottom half of this list to shame.

  14. Re:Should Say "Top 500 Publicly-Acknowledged Super by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    I doubt it. They may have more aggregate computing power, but they'd do badly on the benchmarks that the Top500 list runs, which depend on interconnect speed as well as raw processor throughput. Rendering is an intrinsically parallel problem. In the absolute worst case, you can render frames independently. If you are ray tracing, you can run each ray separately. Other image and object space partitioning schemes let you trivially parallelise other rendering strategies. This means that render farms typically buy fast computers, but connect them with cheap interconnect - often only GigE or similar. If you tried benchmarking them, the interconnect latency and throughput would be the bottleneck.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  15. missing by Jeek+Elemental · · Score: 1

    Would be interesting to see how the botnets compare

  16. Re:Should Say "Top 500 Publicly-Acknowledged Super by Yaos · · Score: 1

    It depends on what you consider a supercomputer. If you have 100 systems running a single cluster for virtual machines, is that a supercomputer because all of the servers are working together? When you go to Google to search for something that goes to one of their datacenters, all of their systems are hooked together to allow very fast searching and serving of results. Is the system behind Google search a supercomputer?

  17. Why do we keep giving China all these advantages? by antifoidulus · · Score: 0, Troll

    Seriously, China is able to see a lot of the advancements made in the US through its army of grad students(the Chinese government essentially helps them cheat on all the tests they need to do well on in order to study in the US, they consider it to be in their national interests). Meanwhile China won't let a foreigner anywhere near their technology. Is it any surprise then that they are getting close to the top?

  18. Largest Pirvately Owned Supercomputer? by Plekto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was curious if any privately owned(non-corporate or government) machines made the list, and where they placed.

    1. Re:Largest Pirvately Owned Supercomputer? by PatPending · · Score: 1
      Well, then, you'll want to consult the source file(s):
      TOP500 List (Excel)

      TOP500 List (XML)

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    2. Re:Largest Pirvately Owned Supercomputer? by lrrosa · · Score: 1

      I was curious if any privately owned(non-corporate or government) machines made the list, and where they placed.

      No, botnets are not part of the list.

  19. actual purpose by Iamthecheese · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In years past as many as 7 out of 10 officially listed computers were for security research. Now, contrary to the article, that's down to 2.

    Jaguar -- general research (http://www.nccs.gov/computing-resources/jaguar/)
    Roadrunner -- security research (http://www.lanl.gov/)
    Kraken XT5 -- general research (National Institute for Computational Sciences/University of Tennessee)
    Tianhe-1 -- unstated
    Pleiades -- security research (nukes)

    "Recently expanded to accommodate growing demand for high-performance systems able to run the most complex nuclear weapons science calculations, BGL now has a peak speed of 596 teraFLOPS. In partnership with IBM, the machine was scaled up from 65,536 to 106,496 nodes in five rows of racks; the 40,960 new nodes have double the memory of those installed in the original machine"

    Intrepid -- General research
    Ranger -- General research
    Red Sky -- General research

    It makese me wonder whether the machines for nuclear research went underground or maybe it just doesn't take a top ranking supercomputer to calculate a nuclear explosion anymore.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:actual purpose by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      perhaps nuke simulations have indeed reached a level where more crunching power isnt worth it anymore, why build a complete new system to do a blast-sim if your existing machine does it in two days. Perhaps there isnt a market for more then X blast simulations per year..

      anyway WOW, 40960 NEW nodes... If every BGL node is a single U of rackspace, then even ignoring network/UPS/etc requirements, that means adding 1000 racks, to the already existing ~1500...

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    2. Re:actual purpose by zeldor · · Score: 2, Informative

      pleaides isnt nukes, its nasa. airplanes and weather.
      the others some are nukes some are open unclassified uses.
      noaa/nsf/etc

      --
      If I could walk that way I wouldnt need cologne.
    3. Re:actual purpose by rdebath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As I understand it most of the nuclear research simulations that it would be nice to run simply cannot be done on any modern machines. If it's only a few particles they can be simulated on a laptop but the interesting interactions need to simulate millions or billions of points with every single one of them influencing every other one in the simulation.

      As a simple example, a genetic algorithm was used to program some reconfigurable FPGA chips. A layout was grown on the chip the did the job but broke just about every rule for FPGA design. There were parts of the layout on the chip that were not connected to any circuit but removing them made the device fail to work. Transferring the layout to a different chip got you a non-working circuit. It would be great to be able to simulate this ... not a chance it's too big, by so very many orders of magnitude.

      http://www.netscrap.com/netscrap_detail.cfm?scrap_id=73

  20. Re:Why do we keep giving China all these advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Do you actually think that everything was and is invented in US? A man that doesn't know the history will lose the future.

  21. Re:Why do we keep giving China all these advantage by antifoidulus · · Score: 0, Troll

    Nope, but nothing innovative has come out of China since the communists took over. I don't even have problems with pretty much any other nation on earth. It's just China that steals technology en masse then calls it their own. It's China that is trying to take over the world. It's China that is destroying the world economy.

    Thats why I boycott Chinese goods. I don't boycott any other nations stuff, and actually I am better for it. Chinese goods are insanely shoddy. I tend to get much better quality when I buy Thai clothes for instance, and for the tiny bit more it costs me when I purchase it it winds up costing much less in replacement costs in the end.

    I paid a bit more for glasses that were made in Japan, and despite years of abuse and neglect the things still work perfectly, I probably would have gone through about 4 $80 Chinese made glasses for the 1 $120 Japanese one. China makes garbage and I would be willing to bet that their "entry" here is a forgery as well.

  22. Re:Should Say "Top 500 Publicly-Acknowledged Super by Shinobi · · Score: 1

    Linpack doesn't stress interconnect by that much, however. But yes, there are quite a few systems not on that list.

  23. Crysis by egcagrac0 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    All this talk of high end computers, and no mention of Crysis?

    Not sure how I feel about that.

  24. Treemap by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

    The sidebar about treemaps is as interesting as the main article. An interesting way to display complex data in a compact form.

    1. Re:Treemap by PatPending · · Score: 1

      Be sure to check out IBM's Many Eyes visualizations (which includes a Treemap).

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    2. Re:Treemap by PatPending · · Score: 1

      ETA: Currently 20 visualization options are available. Here's a Treemap based on the Nov. 2007 statistics: http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/visualizations/supercomputer-center-treemap

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
  25. welcome to 1995 by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Informative

    um. you want a Beowulf with that?

    Linux has been in the supercomputer lists for decades.

    Google is a much better example of how you can use Linux to take over the world; which is what every self respecting middle manager want's to do.

    I.e. Shit loads of cheap compute power. Got any tasks which need that?

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:welcome to 1995 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I.e. Shit loads of cheap compute power.

      how much metric shit load of cheap compute power?

  26. Interesting... by CCarrot · · Score: 2, Funny
    "It's measured against a theoretical benchmark - if you ran a real-world application you might get a very different answer".

    Next bulletin:

    "Vista-based benchmark testing complete - converts Jaguar to big pussycat"

    ;o)

    --
    "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
  27. And Linux passes the 90% mark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    "Linux family" operating systems went from 89% in the previous list to 91% of this one.

    Not that the field wasn't already dominated, but it's an interesting milestone. (FWIW, Linux passed 75% in 2006-11, 50% in 2004-06, and 25% in 2003-06.)

  28. I don't understand your numbers by pavon · · Score: 1

    Are you counting the entire list of computers or just the top 10? Is the first list supposed to be ones used for security research and the second for general research? If so, Red Sky and possibly others are used for security research.

    The change is that most super computers at the national laboratories are not single-use, and are thus listed as general research even if they spend a large proportion of their cycles on security research.

  29. chinks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well that puts a chink in the argument that the west owns the super computer market.

  30. Re:As long as the niggers dont get one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget to post anonymously again?

  31. Weather? by ThrowAwaySociety · · Score: 1

    Of the UK entries in this list, the first few are Hector (the national supercomputing facility), ECMWF, Universities, financial institutions etc. But there are also some labelled "Food industry". I wonder what I am eating that requires a supercomputer?

    Weather simulation, perhaps? Weather has a huge impact on crop yields.

    Or perhaps bioinformatics for genetic tinkering.

  32. I thought it was evolved pseudocode. Yay DEC Alpha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I always thought computers (and supercomputers) were nothing more than proprietary implementations of someone's attempt to simplify their pseudocode. It all boiled down to memory and bus bandwidth issues, not the speed of the processor. That's where the DEC/Compaq/HP Alpha was retired as was HP PA-RISC, yet theoretically the Sun SPARC and IBM Power designs should succeed. Instead we see these astonishingly bogus processors that you call "general purpose" when they are nothing more the biproduct of bad marketing coupled with monopolized software lewding from the likes of Microsoft. Remember it was Microsoft that was pushing the industry for what they termed as a "Windows-ready" server that allowed you to run other competitive operating systems despite having drivers that were only "Windows-ready." They tried to destroy DEC Alpha mid-stream, and that's when Apple backed-out of their bid to purchase Alpha from DEC to be their core desktop and server architecture. It realy broke my heart to see Apple pass Alpha to lease a castrated IBM Power (PowerPC) processor. Alpha and Apple would have been God-tier, but instead it was squandered into the misplaced butchery called Pentium 4 and Athlon XP's hypertransport-bus.

    I am truly rooting for Sun SPARC to pick-up where the apical bud of Alpha was suddenly terminated, for legacy purposes that the true stylish white-box Unix systems should continue. Sun and HP's PARISC have always had the most elegant of memory bus architectures, and that's where DEC was heading to finish their product on using Rambus technologies, but things just tend to fumble around.

    At-least now you can get a once $7k dual Alpha rackmount for under $200 and it is still faster and more power-efficient than a modern Intel and AMD system. Still, it's bad. Just bad, man.

  33. It's called 4chan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is only 1 botnet, it's self-aware, it can flood any website with a gillion "me too's", can bring any moral forum into a rusty halt from tears alone, and it has subsidiaries on every embassy of Sealand.

  34. Snarkback by fm6 · · Score: 1

    This is my chance to snark back at the SPARCophiles at my former employer, Sun. You'll notice that Sun has a respectable presence on this list, lagging just behind SGI. And not a single Sun system on the Top 500 runs SPARC. They're all x64.

    The SPARC Uber Alles mentality at Sun in its last days was really frustrating. I was working on x64 systems that were widely considered the best in their class. But you couldn't get the marketing and sales people to make an effort to sell them. They'd march into sales meetings with prospective customers that already had extensive Intel or AMD investment, and try to tell them that they really needed to abandon all that and switch to SPARC.

    I once told one these bozos, "1998 called. It wants its sales strategy back." Probably had something to do with my being shown the door.

  35. junkshot, topkill,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    time for BP to crank up these badboys to spew out the next cool sounding strategy.

  36. conversing some +Funny redemption 4ur IP address? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Smoke weed everday

  37. Wow, farms putting NZ on the map ... by SickLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

    Server farms that is! Thanks WETA.

    --
    main() {1;} // zen app
  38. Chinese even moderate Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As you can see, through your $120 glasses that you even wouldn't need if after 5 months you ate moar 10lb bags of American carrots available for $5 per bag. Also, rub coconut oil on your eyes, because eye and vision degradation is from lack of nutrients replenishing the proteins in the eye.

  39. Re:Should Say "Top 500 Publicly-Acknowledged Super by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it shouldn't

    Unless you're trying to distinguish it from the "Top 500 not-publicly-acknowledged supercomputers," but publishing such a list publically would invalidate it's contents.

  40. When would my mobile phone have made the list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can anyone take a guess as to what year my Nokia N95 would have made the number one spot, if it had been around?. I'm thinking 1975ish

  41. Re:I thought it was evolved pseudocode. Yay DEC Al by Sanat · · Score: 1

    Back in early 1980 I headed up a team of techs to install Wang VS systems all over China. I had to take a train to Harbin (far north) from Beijing because it was still too cold to fly there.

    I was a visiting American scientist.. and as such in each province i visited the governor would have banquet in my honor and we would all drink wu-shing pigu (5-star beer) and eat great food. For those who know me personally know that I do not like being the center of attention so this was really out of my comfort zone.

    Dr. Wang was in Beijing visiting his original homeland and kin, and I had the occasion to meet his siblings. For those who may not be aware, Dr. Wang (American-Chinese) was instrumental in developing core memory and created Wang Laboratories in the Boston, Massachusetts area..

    I speak only a little Chinese so the old timers still spoke English back from when America and China were friends the first time. The country was opened up again in 1979 with President Nixon creating a trading partnership with them. Several places an individual from China would say I was the first American seen since before the Chiang Kei-Shek era.

    What was funny (actually tragic) was two old timers who managed the Import-Export department in China decided they liked me and that I could be trusted so they wanted me to be their contact in the USA for their manufacturing... I thought to myself... this will go nowhere. And now it is a trillion dollar industry. I was always a great tech but lousy at business.

    Anyway, installing all those computers and helping the programmers and operators in China to learn the systems has assisted in paving the way for China to emerge as one of the leaders in technology.

    I have the utmost respect for their way of Being and thinking although it is quite different from the traditional USA methods.

    --
    And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make