Slashdot Mirror


Cray Unveils Its First GPU Supercomputer

An anonymous reader writes "Supercomputer giant Cray has lifted the lid on its first GPU offering, bringing it into the realm of top supers like the Chinese Tianhe-1A" The machine consists of racks of blades, each with eight GPU and CPU pairs (that can even be installed into older machines). It looks like Cray delayed the release of hardware using GPUs to work on a higher level programming environment than is available from other vendors.

48 of 76 comments (clear)

  1. Which following the pattern of other articles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...will promptly be used for mining BitCoins.

  2. Imagine by taktoa · · Score: 2

    A Beowulf cluster of these!

    1. Re:Imagine by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      Meh, it's got "blades" -- it might as well be a Beowulf cluster.

    2. Re:Imagine by taktoa · · Score: 2

      A Beowulf cluster of Beowulf clusters is not a Beowulf cluster, it's a multidimensional Beowulf cluster.
      Likewise, a BOINC of Beowulf clusters, or a "jagged Beowulf cluster", is not just a Beowulf cluster.

    3. Re:Imagine by jd · · Score: 1

      You'd want to make a MOSIX cluster of Beowulf clusters, so as to allow for each cluster to appear as a node without any conflicts. To make it 3D, you'd use a Kerrighed cluster of MOSIX clusters of Beowulf clusters.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Imagine by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      All your cluster grits are belong to us

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    5. Re:Imagine by djdanlib · · Score: 1

      All your cluster grits are belong to Cowboy Neal, you insensitive clod!

    6. Re:Imagine by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Damn!

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  3. Re:But... by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 2

    ...can it run Metro 2033 on High?

    My single GTX580 can.

    --
    "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  4. Kraken Cray XT5 by Dremth · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I did some rough calculations regarding NICS's Kraken Cray XT5 and bitcoin mining. FYI, The Kraken was the 8th fastest supercomputer in Novermber of 2010. I determined that if the supercomputer put forth all of it's resources to mine bitcoins, it could generate 1,511.61 per day (or about $8,450.53/day). Granted, the Kraken has just regular CPU's doing the calculations. I could only imagine what a Cray supercomputer with GPU's in it would be capable of...

    1. Re:Kraken Cray XT5 by icebraining · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uh, no you couldn't. The rate of bitcoin creation is fixed (it's about 50 BTCs / 10 mins, for now). If you add more computational time the system will adjust and it'd become proportionally harder to generate them, so the global rate would keep stable.

      So despite the 100 thousand-fold increase in mining difficulty in the past 15 months, the network continuously self-adjusts itself to issue one block of Bitcoins about every 10 minutes. The difficulty increase is entirely caused by users competing between themselves to acquire these blocks.

      http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=49

    2. Re:Kraken Cray XT5 by icebraining · · Score: 1

      1511.61 is ~21% of the 7200 daily BTCs, so you'd need around that in computing power.

      According to the NICS page, the Kraken has a peak performance of 1.17 PetaFLOP.
      According to bitcoin watch, the network has now a performance of 46.4 PetaFLOP.

      Now, I'm no mathematician, but it seems to me that 1.17 is far from 21% of 46.4; according to my calculator, it's in fact little over 2.5%.

    3. Re:Kraken Cray XT5 by Dremth · · Score: 1

      Ok, yes, but the difficulty would increase for everyone mining as well. Last I checked, the entire bitcoin network had a mining strength of 1,747 Ghash/s. The Kraken alone has about 367 Ghash/s. That's 21% of the entire network. With all that power coming into the network at once, you're still bound to make a TON of bitcoins, because you're essentially taking a substantially large portion of bitcoins from other miners. I did neglect to factor in the scaling of difficulty (and that's why I said it was a rough calculation. Maybe I should've emphasized "rough" more), so you may not make as much as 1,511.61 BTC/day, but you're still going to make quite a bit (no pun intended).

    4. Re:Kraken Cray XT5 by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, the entire bitcoin network had a mining strength of 1,747 Ghash/s

      Then you're out of date, it's 3653 Ghash/s now.

    5. Re:Kraken Cray XT5 by Dremth · · Score: 1
      My mistake then. I was basing my information off of this: http://www.bitcoinminer.com/post/5622597370/hashing-difficulty-244139

      Total network hashing: 1,747 Ghash/sec

      Either the network strength has significantly increased in the past week, or one of those two sites shouldn't be trusted. Your source looks more reliable.

    6. Re:Kraken Cray XT5 by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Wow. So that's why I left Bitcoin on for four days straight and didn't mine a single coin.

      Explain to me again why anyone is going to be running background Bitcoin processes in 2015?

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    7. Re:Kraken Cray XT5 by Dremth · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that by 2015, the mining for bitcoin will have slowed quite a bit. But, by then it should have hopefully gained enough popularity that it can function as just a p2p economy.

    8. Re:Kraken Cray XT5 by qubezz · · Score: 1

      That means with ten of these, you could have the majority of the compute power, enough to earn majority trust and poison the bitcoin system with your own fake transaction records and wipe everybody's funny-money into oblivion. I'm sure the NSA has enough compute power they could do that now if they wanted to crypto bitcoins instead of your emails for a day. The FBI would probably pay as much attention to a bad actor crashing a fake currency as they would someone hacking your WoW and selling your Traveler's Tundra Mammoth.

    9. Re:Kraken Cray XT5 by qubezz · · Score: 1

      You need to join a pool. Acting alone, and at the current rate processing power is being added with all the pump and dump slashspam, you likely won't win a 50 coin fabulous prize if you left your computer running for four years.

    10. Re:Kraken Cray XT5 by luminate · · Score: 1

      The Kraken reportedly consumes about 2.8 megawatts of power, so assuming your figures are accurate, the power alone would cost about $6,720/day (at $0.10/kWh) for a "profit" of $1730/day. Factor in the fact that it's a $30 million machine with a very short usable lifespan (i.e. massive depreciation), and they'd be losing a ridiculous amount of money.

    11. Re:Kraken Cray XT5 by Intron · · Score: 1

      You are ignoring that it costs more to run a supercomputer than it could generate in bitcoins.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    12. Re:Kraken Cray XT5 by maxume · · Score: 1

      If the apparent value of bitcoins is far higher than the cost of electricity needed to generate them, people will still run clients.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  5. "High level" programming environment? Sigh. by nxmehta · · Score: 2

    The fact that writing C and Fortran code using a message passing library constitutes a high level programming environment is a complete indictment of the sad state of parallel programming today. Seriously, do you want to be programming complex parallel algorithms on HPC machines using Soviet Era technology? I've tried that and it made me want to jump out a window. It's about as easy to program in this type of an environment as it is to program an FPGA (hint: it's a pain in the ass).

  6. Will it support Fortran? by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is still a lot of HPC applications written in Fortran with this run them?
    Also how hard if any of a porting will be needed to get good results from this.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Will it support Fortran? by s.d. · · Score: 1

      PGI makes a CUDA Fortran compiler, but with GPUs, it's not as simple as just recompiling, the code has to be rewritten to take advantage of the accelerator and it's unique architecture.

    2. Re:Will it support Fortran? by qubezz · · Score: 1

      Yes and No. You can write your code, but good luck finding a punch card reader for the Cray....

    3. Re:Will it support Fortran? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      So I guess the second part of the question is. Have the HPC libraries been ported yet. I have heard one of the big reasons that Fortran is still so popular is the large library of highly optimized HPC libraries. The other reason is that Fortran is supposed to be really easy to optimize which I can believe.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  7. Re:Chinese computer dick waving by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You would be right except that their are applications that do require the performance.
    You can never have too much computing power for some applications like climate modeling. So what is your point?

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  8. Re:"High level" programming environment? Sigh. by jd · · Score: 1

    Occam is higher-level than C or Fortran, and it should be possible to adapt Erlang to parallelize across a cluster.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  9. Into the Realm? by David+Greene · · Score: 4, Informative

    bringing it into the realm of top supers like the Chinese Tianhe-1A

    Uh, Cray already has machines in service that blow Tianhe-1A out of the water on real science. Tianhe-1A doesn't even exist anymore. It was a publicity stunt. Cray is already making the top supers. It's others that have to catch up.

    --

    1. Re:Into the Realm? by fintler · · Score: 1

      ANL's Mira is going to be roughly half as fast as LLNL's Sequoia.

    2. Re:Into the Realm? by David+Greene · · Score: 1

      Jaguar.

      As others have noted, IBM also makes machines that far surpass Tianhe-1A on real work. So does SGI.

      Tianhe-1A was interesting for its intended purpose (Top-500) but it's a long way from being a productive tool.

      --

  10. Re:"High level" programming environment? Sigh. by David+Greene · · Score: 1

    You're forgetting things like PGAS and other higher-level parallel programming models. MPI is the dominant technology in use so these machines have to support it well. But they also support more future-looking tools.

    --

  11. Re:So now... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    It is if you just mint and sell or buy to keep the money. But if you use it to trade dematerialized goods, it can become a rally efficient currency.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  12. Re:"High level" programming environment? Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Really, you've tried it and it made you want to jump out of a window? OpenMP is an extremely simple, easy to use add-on to the C language. It is one of the two current standards used for parallelized scientific computing, and although it will eventually be succeeded by a language with more features, it will be difficult for its successor to match its ease and workmanlike grace.

    I honestly have trouble believing someone could have much difficulty with it. If you want to have the work in a "for" loop parallelized the extremely mentally challenging thing to do is write

    #pragma omp for

    just before your for loop. Look at all that difficult message passing you have to contend with! And since you're writing scientific calculations, C generally lends itself to good clarity in the code. I worked with a math major who had only done the smallest bits of C and Java beforehand, and he picked up OpenMP immediately. If you can't handle it, you really should reconsider whether your talents lie in software development. If you want to see what a truly awful parallelizing language or API is, look at UPC - unified parallel C.

  13. Re:"High level" programming environment? Sigh. by KainX · · Score: 1

    MPI != OpenMP

    HTH.

    --
    Michael Jennings | HPC Systems Engineer, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab | Author, Eterm (eterm.org)
  14. Re:"High level" programming environment? Sigh. by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The point is not for the job to be easy for your lazy ass, the point is for the code to execute as quickly as possible.

  15. Re:Chinese computer dick waving by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

    Nothing but a complete moneypit if we have no actual experiments to run on them that require that kind of scale

    And we have plenty, the big ones off the top of my head being nuclear weapons work (as we've replaced live tests with computer simulations entirely), protein folding, climate modelling, and signals intelligence processing. I'm sure other ./ers without your childishly narrow experience of the world can think of others.

  16. My God... by Gerzel · · Score: 1

    It's made of cores!

  17. Re:"High level" programming environment? Sigh. by Coryoth · · Score: 1

    What did you find awful about UPC? I've foudn it very pleasant to work with.

  18. Re:"High level" programming environment? Sigh. by Bill+Barth · · Score: 1

    Have you tried it off-node?

    --
    Yes...I am a rocket scientist.
  19. Re:Sweet by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 2

    Physics simulations involving discretized partial differential equations can make any machine less powerful than a Matroshka Brain cry uncle. If some of my optimizations work out, I'll be able to get near-slideshow framerates on a 512x256 2D simulation of a single, ideal, purely hydrodynamic fluid using nVidia's top of the line C2050 GPU.

    Now consider that I'd prefer to have at least a thousand cells per side in all 3 dimensions, which makes the problem ten thousand times larger, preferably several thousand which would make it nearly a million times larger. Then add magnetism, resistance, viscosity and ExB drift, and move to at least a two or three fluid model, which would make for about 30 times the work per cell over what I've currently got running.

    So before even beginning to consider atomic physics, radiation and non-ideal equations of state, I've made the problem about 20-30 million times more difficult than one which utilizes a GPU to the limit. Even if everything scaled perfectly across a thousand GPUs, major problems would take days or weeks to run :(

  20. Re:"High level" programming environment? Sigh. by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It depends on the task. Some of them are not complex. Some things are so embarrassingly parallel that you just tell the first node or whatever to apply a function to the first lot of data, feed the next lot to the next node and so on - then just concatenate the results together at the end. There's a lot of stuff in geophysics like that, for example - apply filter X to twenty million traces (where a trace is just like an audio track). You could do that with twenty million processor cores if you had them (but other bottlenecks would render that insane long before you got near that number).

  21. Re:Which following the pattern of other articles.. by TWX · · Score: 1

    But is it compatible with Duke Nukem Forever?

    Sadly, the machine I casemodded in full Duke regalia in anticipation of DNF back in 1997 is wholly incapable of running the game, and since it's AT form factor it ain't gettin' upgraded...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  22. Re:"High level" programming environment? Sigh. by David+Greene · · Score: 1

    Yep. Works great!

    --

  23. Re:"High level" programming environment? Sigh. by David+Greene · · Score: 1

    There's more information on the GPU programming model in the HPCWire article. It is OpenMP directive-based, making it quite a bit easier to use than low-level CUDA and other such things.

    --

  24. Re:"High level" programming environment? Sigh. by KainX · · Score: 1

    Maybe so, but the comment to which you replied, and with which you disagreed, was specifically about "using a message passing library." That's MPI, not OpenMP. It's like responding to someone saying, "I don't like spam!" with "But grilled cheese sandwiches are so much tastier when you put ham on them, so clearly you're wrong!" Your statement may be technically correct, but as a response to the topic at hand, it is in error. :-)

    --
    Michael Jennings | HPC Systems Engineer, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab | Author, Eterm (eterm.org)
  25. Re:"High level" programming environment? Sigh. by Coryoth · · Score: 1

    Have you tried it off-node?

    Yes, and it works just fine; the only issues would be if I got my placement wrong via poor layout/blocking or I neglected to upc_memget something that I needed intense access to but for some reason couldn't make local in the initial layout. Neither of those require much forethought at all to avoid.