Slashdot Mirror


JPMorgan Rolls Out FPGA Supercomputer

An anonymous reader writes "As heterogeneous computing starts to take off, JP Morgan have revealed they are using an FPGA based supercomputer to process risk on their credit portfolio. 'Prior to the implementation, JP Morgan would take eight hours to do a complete risk run, and an hour to run a present value, on its entire book. If anything went wrong with the analysis, there was no time to re-run it. It has now reduced that to about 238 seconds, with an FPGA time of 12 seconds.' Also mentioned is a Stanford talk given in May."

194 comments

  1. Ah, progress... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    It fills the heart with inspiration to watch the best and brightest constructing advanced computers to solve the problems of mankind...

    1. Re:Ah, progress... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Someone needs to pay these scientists. Supercomputers don't get built with flowers and hemp. Eventually the tech will find uses in other fields, and we will have the greedy banks to thank for providing the funding for R&D.

    2. Re:Ah, progress... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so they can pull a fast one on you even faster.

    3. Re:Ah, progress... by khallow · · Score: 1

      This is a special case of a trade problem. And trade, namely, deciding how to exchange valuable things with each other, is a big problem of mankind. So yes, my take is that it should fill your heart with inspiration.

    4. Re:Ah, progress... by Canberra+Bob · · Score: 1

      Banks use their r&d for competitive advantage. The chances of them freely releasing their work to help humanity (and their competitors) is not very high.

    5. Re:Ah, progress... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      you'll be glad to hear I have a 2TF super-computing chip crunching out massive frames-per-second as we read.

    6. Re:Ah, progress... by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      The brightest heartless are inspired by the best computers to advance the problems of mankind.

      I eagerly await the next big bombing in NYC.

    7. Re:Ah, progress... by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      like how some tech started out with military funding because that's where the money is?

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    8. Re:Ah, progress... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone needs to pay these scientists. Supercomputers don't get built with flowers and hemp. Eventually the tech will find uses in other fields, and we will have the greedy banks to thank for providing the funding for R&D.

      Other fields like meta-banks?

    9. Re:Ah, progress... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      So now we can soon have economic swings turning from a hype to a depression in no time at all.

      What takes 238 seconds today would have taken a month in old times.

      I'm not sure if this is good or bad.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    10. Re:Ah, progress... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to start taking chainsaws to these peoples' kneecaps, not enough of them are jumping out of windows on their own.

    11. Re:Ah, progress... by jmak · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Like the internet. Or space flight. Or cell phones.

    12. Re:Ah, progress... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      What I find "bad" is that takes 238 seconds for a custom-built supercomputer to determine JPMorgan's risk. For me, that's a very clear "no human can possibly understand what they're up to", which in turn is TL;DR for "get out NOW!".

      Seriously, just what the heck are they doing that takes this kind of computing power to figure out?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    13. Re:Ah, progress... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Almost always, it is the government who pays these scientists, for government projects, schools, and research centers.

      The contribution of the banking cartel parasites is negligible.

  2. More math, faster... by seanadams.com · · Score: 5, Funny

    That will fix our banking system for sure!

    1. Re:More math, faster... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      It just accidentally moved the decimal point on your account two places to the left.

      But it did it hella fast.

    2. Re:More math, faster... by Idbar · · Score: 1

      Well we all hope that at least their bubble crashes faster, so they get a bailout and we all move on sooner.

    3. Re:More math, faster... by syousef · · Score: 1

      That will fix our banking system for sure!

      Banks for sure?

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    4. Re:More math, faster... by c0lo · · Score: 2

      That will fix our banking system for sure!

      GIGO at tremendous speed.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    5. Re:More math, faster... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Ok! Ok! I must have, I must have put a decimal point in the wrong place
      or something. Shit. I always do that. I always mess up some mundane
      detail.

    6. Re:More math, faster... by slamb · · Score: 1

      Babbage said it best: On two occasions I have been asked,—"Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

    7. Re:More math, faster... by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Mitch Ratcliffe: “Computers have enabled people to make more mistakes faster than almost any invention in history, with the possible exception of tequila and hand guns”
      Paul Ehrlich: “To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer.”

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  3. The best and brightest by toppavak · · Score: 1

    A friend in the industry once remarked that some of the best and brightest in software engineering have been going into the financial industry as of late. It's hard not to wonder what they might have achieved in more productive areas of work...

    1. Re:The best and brightest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like advertising?

    2. Re:The best and brightest by dakameleon · · Score: 2

      For me, it was pretty straightforward: Money, and opportunity. Software companies here in Australia tend not to gamble so much on fresh graduates, so the majority of opportunities that were attractive financially were in the consulting (Accenture, IBM, Infosys) or Financial space. As a poor student coming out of university, when I'm given the offers of $45k/yr vs. $60k/yr, plus bonuses, it's a pretty easy decision. Work hours tend not to be onerous, workplace conditions good, and the majority are in the main CBD. After a couple of years, experience and recruitment policies tend to railroad you into the industry unless you take a major step sideways.

      That said, I'm always curious what "more productive areas" of work people consider to be out there for the average software engineer.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    3. Re:The best and brightest by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · · Score: 1

      Why would advertising or marketing need bright people when theres actually no challenge in the field, I mean.. HIT THA MONKEY iN TEH BELLAH AND WIN 9000 iPads. == thousands of hits.

      Advertising is 90% targeting, if you are not getting any "smart" Ads, probably you are not the target for those or use adblock since you were getting lots of dumb Ads.

    4. Re:The best and brightest by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      A friend in the industry once remarked that some of the best and brightest in software engineering have been going into the financial industry as of late. It's hard not to wonder what they might have achieved in more productive areas of work...

      I agree. Nationalise the so-called financial sector entirely and stop them inventing new derivatives-of-derivatives-of-derivatives, and just to stick to nice simple money going in and out of acounts. Then re-allocate the best minds into fields like medicine and space travel.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  4. Huh? by PJ6 · · Score: 1

    The company also supports Excel and all different versions of Linux.

    Riiiight.

    1. Re:Huh? by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      Not that hard. Excel, front of house. Linux, back of house.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    2. Re:Huh? by NateTech · · Score: 1

      "All different versions"?

      --
      +++OK ATH
    3. Re:Huh? by LordNacho · · Score: 1

      FYI there's a crazy number of front-office traders running their own "programs" if you call their VBA that. Whatever you think of it, Excel is an easy way to custom-build financial calculations, as well as a simple front-end for displaying information. Usually the guys are too busy to turn their sheet into something more rigorous.

    4. Re:Huh? by PJ6 · · Score: 1

      Oh I'm not knocking Excel. I LOVE financial customers and their spreadsheets. They know exactly what they want, and that makes them very easy to please.

    5. Re:Huh? by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      Having worked in a similar company, I can say that while "all" might be a bit broad, it's not hard to find different flavours of *nix around the place. We used Red Hat for the servers, debian for the dev boxes - other teams used Solaris for the servers, SuSE for dev - the servers were eventually all pushed to a unified platform (Solaris), but no-one really cared which flavour you had on your dev box.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
  5. Re:Pictures of the rig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Goatse Alert!!

  6. Re:Pictures of the rig by blair1q · · Score: 3, Informative

    Do not click. Some sort of phony coprophile spam.

  7. Re:Pictures of the rig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate you.

  8. Garbage in, Garbage out by ka9dgx · · Score: 2

    Information asymmetry makes even the fastest analysis on the planet irrelevant as the data input is garbage. It is this lack of transparency which resulted in the housing bubble, etc.

    The "too big to fail" banks regularly hide data from customers, regulators, and other branches of their own organization.

    This is interesting because of the speedup of FPGAs, but don't be fooled by a second that it addresses an actual business need, other than PR.

    1. Re:Garbage in, Garbage out by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      It is rather curious that a company of JP Morgan's size would choose to address risk with computers rather than lobbyists. It has already been demonstrated that enterprises who matter can simply play "heads I win, tails you lose" with the public purse.

    2. Re:Garbage in, Garbage out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nah, but you need the computers. If you simulate the Risk real closely, estimating your max exposure, this means you have have more room to continue trading before higher ups have to sign off on getting more collateral to cover the current deals. If you wanted to skip using computers, you could just say "Meh, the rules say if I'm blind idiot, I have to put up, oh, 20% collateral. On the other hand, if I do a full evaluation according to these rules, the simulations state I only need, 14%. Score! I can do another... 3-4 million worth of deals with current limits." The traders love this stuff.

      Ideally, though, it help for some trading that if some VP acknowledges that frankly you can't price some products so maybe those are product types your bank should maybe avoid. And not by, oh, handling the issue of correlation of deals (Ie, if these deals become riskier, do these other deals also become riskier?) by just declaring the correlation constant is 0. Which is perhaps fine when dealing with small portions of spread out markets, and less fine when you're actually starting to deal with a large percentage of the market at the same time.

    3. Re:Garbage in, Garbage out by khallow · · Score: 1

      Information asymmetry makes even the fastest analysis on the planet irrelevant as the data input is garbage.

      Even garbage data tends to have real information hidden in it. And most financial data tends to have a quite a bit of real information in it.

      Plus, what side of the "information asymmetry" is JP Morgan on? I bet they tend to have the advantage.

    4. Re:Garbage in, Garbage out by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      Human stupidity, greed and arrogance resulted in the housing bubble & subsequent crash. Banks such as Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank who had clever people that saw the whole thing coming got out while the going was good and made money on the way down - powered by intelligence, greed and arrogance. Transparency had nothing to do with it.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    5. Re:Garbage in, Garbage out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Running multiple versions of the books takes a lot of processing power. It is a business need.

    6. Re:Garbage in, Garbage out by johnthorensen · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's an either/or proposition. With their resources, they can afford both.

  9. A decade ago called... by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 1

    ...starbridge wants their concept back.

    --

    help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

  10. Needs Moar Technobabble... by benjamindees · · Score: 1

    For the new Maxeler system, it flattened the C++ code down to a Java code.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    1. Re:Needs Moar Technobabble... by lennier · · Score: 1

      For the new Maxeler system, it flattened the C++ code down to a Java code.

      Just one Java code? I bet it was '.'

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  11. I'm all tingly. by musth · · Score: 1

    They can afford this crap because of all the money that has been transferred upward into bankers' pockets.

  12. Absolutely! More golfing, less bankrupting! by zooblethorpe · · Score: 2

    That will fix our banking system for sure!

    I can't agree more. An increase in the number of golf matches and accelerated round-robin tournament configuration would go a long way to keeping those pesky bank officials occupied on the links and safely out of their offices. The Florida Professional Golfers' Association will benefit while also helping protect our nation's assets from executive malfeasance.

    ...

    Wait a minute, what are we talking about here?

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  13. Heterogeneous Computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to admit I didn't know what that term meant, and decided to google it. If you don't know I'd recommend you do the same, it looks very interesting, even if youj take nothing else from this story.

  14. Re:Pictures of the rig by jittles · · Score: 1

    I thought there used to be a way to report spam?

  15. Hardware is faster than softare by Smallpond · · Score: 1

    This is a good idea. A hardware implementation of a risk analysis algorithm is always faster than software.

  16. What's next for the FPGA supercomputer? by psyclone · · Score: 1

    Reprogram this risk analysis computer into a Bitcoin miner and finish the remainder of the 26M BTC?

    1. Re:What's next for the FPGA supercomputer? by zill · · Score: 1

      Actually it's 21 million BTC in total.

      There are currently 14.2 million BTC left, which are worth $203 million USD in today's market values. JPmorgan made $17.37 billion last year. You do the math.

    2. Re:What's next for the FPGA supercomputer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How else do you think JPMorgan is going to become financially sound?

    3. Re:What's next for the FPGA supercomputer? by makomk · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if someone already has, to be honest.

  17. Common function migrates to hardware Film at 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, it is *somewhat* newsworthy, but in some sense it's not. Common function alwasy migrate into hardware. At some point, we were writing code to find the cos of an angle, then it got built into some languages, now it's built into hardware. Given enough time, the more common functions end up in hardware. Some day, most of the OS will be in there, and then all the stuff about Linux vs. $whatever will be pointless.

  18. Have they got the right algorithm though? by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

    So they have sped up to computation but have they spent any time and effort on getting a sane algorithm that, for example, can identify a house-of-cards situation like the recent collapse?

    --
    Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    1. Re:Have they got the right algorithm though? by DalDei · · Score: 1

      They dont need to. As long as their algorithm is executed faster then their competitors they will win. Financial algorithms are not about sanity, they are about out-guessing the competition and making changes to your algorithm faster then they do.

    2. Re:Have they got the right algorithm though? by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      They are modelling their risk exposure. If they have failed to adapt to recent risk stupidities then all they have achieved is a faster misrepresentation of their position. They might even get to ruin faster than their competitors, which is hardly a good thing even on a trading "floor".

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    3. Re:Have they got the right algorithm though? by NateTech · · Score: 1

      Who says they didn't see the collapse coming and knew the government would bail them out at the expense of the taxpayer?

      --
      +++OK ATH
    4. Re:Have they got the right algorithm though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't want to. They already know it's a house of cards. Pump and dump. Greed prevented them from dumping fast enough.

  19. Could they not use GPUs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article is light on details. It seems unlikely that they're doing anything that would prevent them from doing it significantly faster with less power draw on a GPU, and with lower initial hardware costs to boot.

    1. Re:Could they not use GPUs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It seems unlikely that they're doing anything that would prevent them from doing it significantly faster with less power draw on a GPU, and with lower initial hardware costs to boot.

      No, FPGAs use significantly less power and provide greater performance than GPUs. The initial capital cost is higher though. Here's an article that gives a bit more detail: http://www.xilinx.com/publications/archives/xcell/issue74/FPGAs-speed-computation-complex-credit-derivatives.pdf

    2. Re:Could they not use GPUs? by HateBreeder · · Score: 1

      GPUs are much more power hungry compared to FPGA and provide a fraction of the performance.

      At the end of the day, GPUs are designed for gaming machines... the whole GPGPU thing is a side show for the graphics market. It's just not optimized in any way for this sort of computation. There's little money to be made building supercomputers compared to selling gaming machines.

      However, an FPGA can be completely customized to suit your exact needs, you will make efficient use of the entire chip. It won't be a mere coincidence (like in the GPU case) that the chip can be used for a computation that you need. The FPGA is customized directly to fit an algorithm. this efficiency is where the speed gains are made.

      It seems people put a lot of effort in to making their software compatible with GPUs and changing their algorithms to fit the GPU model.. this is a distorted view of reality - it is the computer that needs and can change to suit the problem, not the other way around.

      --
      Sigs are for the weak.
    3. Re:Could they not use GPUs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That article compares FPGAs to CPUs, where that claim is true, not GPUs. It's telling that GPUs are never even mentioned.

    4. Re:Could they not use GPUs? by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      >> No, FPGAs use significantly less power

      Depends on the actual hardware being compared. The important metric isn't raw power consumption, but FLOP/watt.

      >> and provide greater performance than GPUs

      Not if the algorithm can be (and is!) expressed in kernels that can be operated in a massively parallel fashion. Not even close.

      However if you just want to run Plain Old Code... then yes the FPGA is going to dominate. Also if you are looking for super low latency, then FPGA is the way to go.

      I guess my point is that you can't make such a blanket statement.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    5. Re:Could they not use GPUs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GPUs from five years ago, maybe. Modern "graphics" processing units are streaming multiprocessors that are much more flexible than you seem to give them credit for. They also have much higher computational density, memory bandwidth, and computation-to-power ratios than FPGAs. The only thing an FPGA buys you is flexibility to solve problems GPUs are not good at, which they don't appear to need.

  20. You know you have too much $$$ when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... you need a super computer to add it up for you.

    JP Morgue - Buying off Congress, taking hostage the commodity sector, buying off the CFTC, getting multi-billion bail-outs and free Fed POMO $$$ each day risk free! WTF do they need super computers to assess risk for? All they need is a macro to do what they do now - get the American taxpayers to buy their toxic assets they've offloaded to the Fed.

    1. Re:You know you have too much $$$ when... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      And if you are real good you get to do the books for disaster area.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  21. How fast would a bitcoin server process the bank.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think the FPGA's are as fast as the ATI GPU's for computing SHA hashes, but they probably use a heck of a lot less electricity. What I want to know is how fast my 5 GHash bitcoin cluster would compute the banks book :)

  22. im less impressed by the by nimbius · · Score: 2

    performance of the system, its architecture or its value to the company
    and more impressed that one of the worlds largest financial service providers
    partially responsible for the worlds second largest economic collapse has found, despite their
    prior record with the concept of 'risk', the objective, quantifiable definition of the amorphous and
    highly elusive concept of said 'risk.'

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:im less impressed by the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, look at it this way, they now have the time to run MANY MANY different versions of risk in the previous span of time and compare them to what really happens!

    2. Re:im less impressed by the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JP Morgan has a very good risk record. They dumped all their sub prime assets in 2005, long before the crisis. If every bank had been as responsible, we would probably be in much better shape today.

  23. Pretty stupid approach. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0

    Way to tie yourselves to some oddball implementation forever. In 5 years they'll be regretting the hell out of this decision. They should have invested the time and money in improving the algorithm and implementation, and thrown commodity hardware at the problem. Hardware will improve over time and it becomes an off the shelf improvement, not some horrible one-off solution they're stuck with barring great expense and yet another complete reworking.

    The company that did this for them, however, was god damn smart. Guaranteed revenue to develop, support, and migrate off of this over time.

    This is why the market crashed - these "smartest guys in the room" aren't so smart sometimes.

    1. Re:Pretty stupid approach. by yodleboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      well as someone earlier posted, it's about making decisions faster than the competition. If they can analyze a transaction, assign a risk and make a decision faster, they make the money. If the competition also takes 8 hours to do an analysis, doing it in 3 min is huge. Who cares if it's outdated in 5 years? You build another with a fraction of the profits this one helped you earn you and keep chugging along.

      sometimes, in some industries, first post IS important.

    2. Re:Pretty stupid approach. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but I can't believe they couldn't do this with a more mainstream approach. Besides, 5 years was generous. Between GPGPU and just plain old CPU improvements, more than likely like 1.5-2 years. They're not dealing with climate change or nuclear explosions - they don't need a god damn custom supercomputer. I think it's like those assholes who buy $50k golden plasmas that have the same picture as a $5k plasma, they just have money to burn.

    3. Re:Pretty stupid approach. by HateBreeder · · Score: 1

      I think you're underestimating the bank.

      The cost of this solution might have been low enough to warrant the immediate gains in performance.
      The lock-in you describe might not exist, as the algorithms and the accelerated bits are a small portion of the entire code-base (but take 99% of the run-time).
      It will very likely be the case that the cost of not going with this solution is far far greater than going for it.

      --
      Sigs are for the weak.
    4. Re:Pretty stupid approach. by smellotron · · Score: 0

      In 5 years they'll be regretting the hell out of this decision. They should have invested the time and money in improving the algorithm and implementation, and thrown commodity hardware at the problem....
      This is why the market crashed - these "smartest guys in the room" aren't so smart sometimes.

      This statement appears to be make two assumptions:

      • Anyone who doesn't use commodity hardware is not smart
      • The people who make software implementation decisions at JPM also make the trading and investment decisions.

      The first one is just ridiculous, and you should know it. Specialized hardware doesn't exist for shits and giggles, and JPM is big enough to understand both the maintenance cost of specialization and the performance gains. The second assumption... well... it's much more likely to be a "Death Star Contractor" situation. I doubt the head traders and investment officers at JPM really care about FPGAs, and I doubt that the R&D lab understands all of the nuances of the derivatives trading in which their company takes part.

    5. Re:Pretty stupid approach. by jamesh · · Score: 1

      and thrown commodity hardware at the problem. Hardware will improve over time and it becomes an off the shelf improvement, not some horrible one-off solution they're stuck with barring great expense and yet another complete reworking.

      ... because FPGA's are highly specialised one-off hardware items that are never improved on and will be obsolete within a year?

    6. Re:Pretty stupid approach. by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      FGPA's are commodity hardware. No reason to believe they also won't improve in the next five years, even more so than a conventional CPU. as nobody can really see a way to get the manufacturing tech down below 14nm.

    7. Re:Pretty stupid approach. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The people who make software implementation decisions at JPM also make the trading and investment decisions.

      The people who make the software implementation decision at JPM sit alongside the traders making the trading decisions. Both sides know precisely the benefits from faster risk calculations.

    8. Re:Pretty stupid approach. by Digicrat · · Score: 1

      Just because they're FPGAs doesn't mean they can't be upgraded over time. Most FPGAs can be re-programmed many times in the event that they improve upon their algorithm. Further, while FPGAs are improved upon at a slower rate, they are improved over time and I would suspect that their design could be ported to newer FPGA versions as they become available without to much trouble - just the expense of buying a new system. And given how much money the banks have, and the value they seem to be placing in this system, I don't doubt that they'd have any hesitation about purchasing a second "super-pipelining-machine" that's "even better" a few years down the line.

    9. Re:Pretty stupid approach. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stealing from JP Morgan - that alone ought to be worth a drink in some places.

    10. Re:Pretty stupid approach. by hjf · · Score: 1

      No. ALL FPGAs can be reprogrammed. Field-Programmable gate arrays.

      FPGAs don't have programming memory, they need an external chip that holds the program, and downloads it to the FPGA on boot. Ignore OP, he doesn't know shit.

    11. Re:Pretty stupid approach. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      There is no "commodity hardware" (as I think you are using the term) that can compete with a board full of FPGAs. You want a handful of cores and threads in a microprocessor? A small FPGA can do *thousands* of processes in parallel without working up a sweat. The performance gains here completely justify designing a new board as each FPGA generation comes to market. Some of you folks need to stop putting everything into the perception of a hobbyist putting together a gaming rig for the best price.

      There a great chart I saw online about trying to push microprocessors to do the same processing that's trivial when parallelized in an FPGA. Even with projected fabrication improvements and smaller geometries, you wind up with microprocessors at heat levels comparable to rocket exhausts and nuclear reactor cores. And don't forget that FPGAs can use the same fabrication improvements. Also, some FPGAs have microprocessor cores embedded in them should you still have something that needs to be coded that way for whatever reason.

      these "smartest guys in the room" aren't so smart sometimes.

      No, they just know way more about FPGAs than you. You could Google "FPGA supercomputers", you know. This is an emerging field. I see it at my work where the systems folks are banging their heads against the wall because even superclusters of Linux machines can't give them the performance they need. Simulations are still taking days to run.

    12. Re:Pretty stupid approach. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Or maybe you just have no idea what you are talking about.

    13. Re:Pretty stupid approach. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Heh heh. People like me who work with FPGAs know that all too well. I designed a board recently with a bunch of Xilinx Virtex-6 parts. We had to get engineering samples we were such early adopters. Some of the larger parts we used in the design hadn't even started fabrication yet. Six months later the board is built and being used, and Xilinx announces the Virtex 7 family.

    14. Re:Pretty stupid approach. by Digicrat · · Score: 1

      Not true, there is no "re-" in the definition of an FPGA. if you look at the types of FPGAs available about half of them can only be programmed once. A significant portion of those in commercial use may be re-programmable, but definitely not all of them.

      An FPGA means it can be programmed at least once, by the consumer, in the field. Being able to erase and re-program is not a requirement, and in a number of cases not allowing the FPGA to be changed after initial programming is in fact a design requirement.

  24. A bit more detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's a bit more detail in this article from XCell (the journal by Xilinx, the people who sell the FPGAs that JP Morgan used) - http://www.xilinx.com/publications/archives/xcell/issue74/FPGAs-speed-computation-complex-credit-derivatives.pdf

  25. Maxeler's partially owned by JP Morgan by ecner · · Score: 2

    Note that Maxeler sold 20% of itself to JP Morgan earlier this year.

  26. Nifty, but remember: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    A purpose built machine will often vastly outperform a general purpose computer.

    The nice thing about an FPGA machine is that creating the purpose built machine is much faster.

  27. Risk and "Risk" by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

    Since they closed their proprietary trading operation, this will no longer be useful in evaluating bets against the "investments" they recommend to their customers. Is this really useful, or is it just another complicated black box they can show marks and say "this is too complicated for you to understand, so just trust us."?

    1. Re:Risk and "Risk" by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      The result of this will be that they'll get a number summing up their credit risk in 5 minutes instead of 8 hours. If there's anything way out of whack, they'll be able to react during the day, rather than having to react effectively 24 hours later.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
  28. Re:How fast would a bitcoin server process the ban by HateBreeder · · Score: 2

    1 Virtex-6 SX475T could give you about 1 billion SHA-256 hashes/second clocked at 200MHz., will use 20% the power of the ATI GPU. but will cost about 4 times as much.

    --
    Sigs are for the weak.
  29. From the article.... by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    "For the new Maxeler system, it flattened the C++ code down to a Java code."

    ???

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:From the article.... by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      By "flattened" it meant "bloated through interpretation and unnecessary recompilation".

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
  30. C++ to Java? by zill · · Score: 2

    For the new Maxeler system, it flattened the C++ code down to a Java code.

    I hope to God that's a typo. C++ -> Java -> Java Bytecode -> Native code almost sounds like a programming language Rube Goldberg machine.

    How would the pointer operations even translate?

    1. Re:C++ to Java? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's not how it works. The Maxeler FPGA compiler is actually a Java library for describing dataflow machines. They call it "stream computing" - basically just very deep pipelines. You describe your algorithm in the dataflow/streaming style, using the Maxeler Java library, then when you run your program the output is an HDL design to load onto the FPGAs. There's no automatic conversion from a serial program (in C++ or anything else) to a dataflow/streaming program. The developer reimplements the algorithm manually.

    2. Re:C++ to Java? by bunratty · · Score: 1

      Java references are pointers.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    3. Re:C++ to Java? by renrutal · · Score: 1

      Usually when one asks if language X has pointers, the person wants to know if it can do pointer arithmetic, and that's a resound NO in JVM based languages. Which is why we say Java has references, not pointers.

    4. Re:C++ to Java? by spiracle · · Score: 1

      Upvote the parent, it's about the only post in this discussion with actual information.

    5. Re:C++ to Java? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Java references are implemented with pointers.

      FTFY. They are actually closer to C++ smart pointers in that you can't do crazy pointer arithmetic with them, but they will do garbage collection.

      This means that while you certainly could implement Java references using pointers (and other stuff like GC), and I doubt there are any serious implementations using anything else, you can't reasonably implement pointers using Java references.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    6. Re:C++ to Java? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Java references are pointless

    7. Re:C++ to Java? by bunratty · · Score: 1

      No, the are pointers. They can be implemented using pointers or handles. Don't confuse what something is with how it is implemented.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    8. Re:C++ to Java? by bunratty · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's all true. But if you look up the definition of a computer science pointer, you'll see that Java, Python, Perl, and JavaScript references are all pointers. So Java has pointers, but not C pointers that can do pointer arithmetic.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    9. Re:C++ to Java? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Some of the target markets for FPGA supercomputing want exactly that, though. They want their C and Matlab to just compile with some tool and download to the FPGA based system. It's a big issue facing an emerging field. Where I work we have stodgy old systems folks set in their ways, but we also have lots of VHDL/Verilog coders, so the two can work together. There are tools to do these conversions, but nothing has approached the turnkey level yet. There's also the question of code efficiency analogous to HTML coded by hand versus HTML generated by a WYSIWYG tool.

    10. Re:C++ to Java? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      No, the are pointers.

      No, they're not.

      We can play yes they are / no they're not all day, if you like, but I'm curious -- how are they pointers when pointer arithmetic doesn't work on them? We've also seen languages that have both a "pointer" and a "reference" concept, and the reference is again different -- C++ references are implemented using pointers, but are semantically different than an actual pointer.

      I suppose you could argue that they are castrated pointers with a lot of syntactic sugar for dereferencing. That would be fair, but then, Unix is castrated Multics -- there are fundamental differences.

      I could also refer you to Wikipedia, which actually has this the other way around -- pointers are references, but not all references are pointers. Tell me, is this description inadequate?

      a pointer is a programming language data type whose value refers directly to (or "points to") another value stored elsewhere in the computer memory using its address.

      If that's an adequate description, then I'm done -- not all references, perhaps not even all in Java, are implemented using pointers. The more general description of a reference is given as:

      In computer science, a reference is a value that enables a program to indirectly access a particular data item, such as a variable or a record, in the computer's memory or in some other storage device.

      "A value" may or may not be the actual address, and Java makes the address itself inaccessible, other than (perhaps) via the == operator. It clarifies:

      File handles, or handles, are a type of reference used to abstract file content. It usually represents both the file itself, as when requesting a lock on the file, and a specific position within the file's content, as when reading a file.

      If that is what you meant by "handles", then you are mostly correct, you're just confusing the words "pointer" and "reference".

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  31. Baloney by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    The devs are going to run jobs while the machine is idle to corner the Bitcoin market.

    But, wow, from the perspective of getting the Boss to buy awesome hardware for your pet projects - hey, we're not worthy.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, you know nothing about the issue of doing monte-carlo simulations on a portfolio full of derivatives, if you think this is baloney. Industry is flirting with GPGPU and FPGA for a while, cause in 2005 you already had cluster of 3000 machines (for instance http://www.banktech.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=171203551), and now banks run cluster of 10th of thousands of cores routinely.

      Btw, if a dev for a large investment bank best idea of idle hardware use is to mine bitcoins, then he is seriously retarded.

  32. Re:How fast would a bitcoin server process the ban by zill · · Score: 1

    I don't think the FPGA's are as fast as the ATI GPU's for computing SHA hashes

    Correct.

    but they probably use a heck of a lot less electricity.

    Correct.


    But unfortunately their initial cost is much higher than ATI GPUs which is why no one started mass mining with FPGAs yet.

  33. Re:How fast would a bitcoin server process the ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I happen to know of someone who has been bitcoin mining with a huge array of FPGAs for the last two years and absolutely raking it in.

  34. Re:Absolutely! More golfing, less bankrupting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It may surprise you to learn that JPMorgan doesn't actually sponsor any golf events. Jamie Dimon has made a habit of eliminating golf sponsorship dollars at every company he's run.

    But then, Slashdot comments aren't about accuracy, they're about mod points.

  35. Weep, USA, weep! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This technological breakthrough is an important milestone on the downfall of the mighty USA. When the brightest of a country are engaged into a completely nonproductive activity and wastes important resources (in terms of education, knowleddge and to some extent money) to achieve nothing which benefits the society, it's a high-mark - it's all downhill from here.

    Let's come back here after 20 years and see how this comment stands up to time.

    Weep, USA.

    1. Re:Weep, USA, weep! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It's not just the USA. I periodically get job offers from financial organisations in the UK, offering 5-10 times what I currently make. It's easy to see why it's difficult to recruit people for more productive occupations.

      If they didn't require me to relocate to the cesspit known as London, I'd almost be tempted, in spite of the soul-destroying nature of the work.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Weep, USA, weep! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Nonproductive"

      Well pray tell, what is the point of producing if not to generate capital?

    3. Re:Weep, USA, weep! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Well, OK, but what field do you work in? Because if it's anything commercial, it's pure snobbery to differentiate between (legally) making money at A or (legally) making money at B. If you're working on a cure for cancer at minimum wage, fair play to you.

      And there's nothing wrong wih London if you're earning a lot of money...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:Weep, USA, weep! by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Uh, the point of producing things is improving the human condition. In the absence of production we all starve to death in a few weeks. Of course, in such a state we all revert to foraging, which is just very inefficient production without much trade. Then somebody figures out that if you plant crops and I keep out the foxes, then we can both share a lot more food than we'd have if we both just went around eating leaves or whatever. Then we figure out that the division of labor gets really complicated really fast and thus we invent money to make it easier to trade a little of one work for a little of the product of somebody else's work. Then the doctor can eat even when the farmer isn't sick.

      The money itself has no true societal value aside from being a convenient way to decouple trades. I sell you a bandaged wound, and then I buy an apple, some milk, and a part for my car, the result is that you've traded a fixed arm for an apple, some milk, and some car parts, and yet you didn't have to walk around town with me making deals with everybody else as I applied a few stitches at a time.

      Now somebody comes along and convinces everybody to buy famine insurance. Indeed, they convince the bankers to require it before giving people money to buy seed. Then the bankers realize that they can make some money by buying their own famine insurance so that if there is a famine they get paid twice. Then the bankers realize that they can make even more money by selling famine insurance to each other as well since there hasn't been a famine in 50 years, so what could go wrong? Then one year there is a famine and we find out every $10k field is covered by $475M in famine insurance but nobody has the cash to pay it out and nobody can keep track of who owes money to who since both sides of the hundreds of transactions per field have been split and traded thousands of times. Now, in such a situation which is a more productive solution - investing in better farming technologies to actually feed people during a famine (which is the whole point of having a farm), or coming up with better computer programs so that next time we can have $900M in corn rust insurance per farm but lots of charts showing how nothing bad can come of it?

    5. Re:Weep, USA, weep! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Well, OK, but what field do you work in?

      A variety of things. I do some work on HPC compilers that are used, for example, by people mapping the human genome and doing protein folding simulations to search for cures for various diseases. I write books. I'm currently involved with a project to develop the IT infrastructure in Tanzania.

      Because if it's anything commercial, it's pure snobbery to differentiate between (legally) making money at A or (legally) making money at B.

      Yes, because nothing commercial affects anyone else in the world, and so everything is entirely equivalent. Most of the projects that I work on - including some that I work on for free - have a net positive impact on society. At worst, they're neutral. High speed trading and exploiting market conditions, causing bubbles and busts in the process, has a significant negative impact.

      And there's nothing wrong wih London if you're earning a lot of money...

      You mean apart from the rude and obnoxious people, the high crime rate and the air quality below EU standards that kills thousands of people every year?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Weep, USA, weep! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pray tell, what's the point of generating capital when the country does not have healthcare for everybody?

      If you understand above question, you would have your answer. But alas, if you knew it, you would not have asked it. And hence you wont understand the question.

  36. Objection. It's not math. by schlameel · · Score: 1

    They aren't doing math; they are using software. Patented, mathless software.

  37. Engineers solve problems by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would positively love to do something like this. The purpose of an engineer is to solve problems. That's what makes me happy at work. Solving problems. So here you have a very specific problem that required the construction of a custom computer made out of banks of FPGAs. Tell me that's not sexy! Who cares if it's for bankers. That is a damn nifty gadget to work on building.

    Imagine building it yourself. Switching networks, Linux on ARM cores peppered here and there coordinating and dumping program code to the FPGA banks, writing the drivers to grab the data once the run is completed...

    And at the end of the day a problem solved: What once took all day now takes a couple of minutes.

    This would have been a thoroughly nifty machine to work on.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Engineers solve problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Who cares if it's for bankers. That is a damn nifty gadget to work on building.

      Replace "bankers" with "the Third Reich" and you would no doubt find some IBM engineers in the 1930s thinking exactly the same thing about the computers they were building.

      Just because the technology is cool doesn't mean you're absolved of any moral or ethical dilemmas that may arise from working on it.

    2. Re:Engineers solve problems by hjf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, why don't you? The beauty if VHDL is that it's really, really basic. The rest is up to you to implement. Come join us in ##vhdl at irc.freenode.net or try fpga4fun.com. $100 should get you an FPGA training board which you can use to learn.

    3. Re:Engineers solve problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The purpose of an engineer is to solve problems. This is a damn cool application! Who knew that tracking credit card numbers, purchase habits, 7-11, etc. could quantify so many different "risk" patterns in the population. It is cool that we can help out those people who habitually make bad choices in their lives to send them to re-education camps. I'm so happy I'm able to help those people out (e.g., get them out of my way) of their bad, self-caused situations so they have a chance to get better. And, yes, I DO love Big Brother!

      Think it through a little bit more next time.

    4. Re:Engineers solve problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can solve your problems, hang the fucking banksters!

    5. Re:Engineers solve problems by EvilAlphonso · · Score: 0

      Wanna know how I know that you know nothing about risk management?

    6. Re:Engineers solve problems by RKBA · · Score: 1

      Ba Humbug! Verilog is far more intuitive and easy to use than VHDL. Verilog is more akin to the C language; whereas, VHDL is more like (Ugh!) COBOL, or to be slightly more charitable -- ADA, the DOD's failed computer software language.

    7. Re:Engineers solve problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, why don't you? The beauty if VHDL is that it's really, really basic. The rest is up to you to implement. Come join us in ##vhdl at irc.freenode.net or try fpga4fun.com. $100 should get you an FPGA training board which you can use to learn.

      *leaves slashdot forum feeling inspired and excited for the potential of a new learning experience*

      Thank you for this tidbit of information!

    8. Re:Engineers solve problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many IBM employees were tried at Nuremberg?

    9. Re:Engineers solve problems by ballpoint · · Score: 1

      I never thought I'd hear beauty and VHDL in the same sentence, unless there was a negative operator in there too.

      --
      Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
    10. Re:Engineers solve problems by other-different-nick · · Score: 2

      The purpose of an engineer is to solve problems.

      Engineers solve real-world problems: when they make simplifying assumptions, they try to avoid transparent falsehoods like "a market functions with perfect transparency," and "all players in a market behave rationally." Hell, there's no way to even check the latter statement for truth: destroying a major company to build your relatively minor personal fortune may or may not be rational. If any solid engineering had been invested into the mortgage market of the past decade, the ultra-rich would not have cleaned up by throwing the economy into turmoil. Yet somehow, they have been able to do so, and if anybody ever goes to jail for this type of fraud, it will be a pawn like you.

      Occasionally, engineers do fuck up [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_%281940%29]], but when you look at major economic events from the eighties [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26L_crisis]], nineties [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron]], and today [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap]], it seems slanderous for you to mention your particular brand of snake-oil in the same sentence as "engineering."

    11. Re:Engineers solve problems by chthon · · Score: 1

      If you can't write a remote login shell in COBOL, or an application to organise your libraries, then you cannot program . Yes, I did both, on a platform (WANG VS) for which there was only a COBOL compiler installed. But I had access to all the OS calls through the compiler, so I could program what I wanted.

      And I haven't seen anything in the last 10 years after I stopped with COBOL, that surpasses the ease to make proper financial calculations with it.

    12. Re:Engineers solve problems by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      I can attest that Verilog is easy and intuitive, since it got me from a total newbie to a project that other people find useful, in a couple of weeks. Of course, some electronics and computing background helped a lot.

      My choice of language was partly influenced by the apparent verbosity of VHDL. It's the same reason why I preferred to learn Python instead of Java, for example. However, I also have the impression that VHDL is in some sense lower-level and more strictly defined, so you can have finer control on some things. For example, to do arithmetic in VHDL you need to explicitly load the requisite library. I'm not sure how much this influences the resulting circuit, though.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    13. Re:Engineers solve problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme" -- François Rabelais

      (Knowledge without conscience is but the ruin of the soul)

    14. Re:Engineers solve problems by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      ADA, the DOD's failed computer software language

      Ada failed? If you can write SPARK Ada, I can point you at several companies that will hire you at an insane rate for entry level positions. The language has no serious competitors for situations where it's actually important that the software works.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:Engineers solve problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have fun bartering your chicken for another night with Ned's sheep you pompous twat. Banking, credit and risk assessment are real world problems. Just because you do not understand them and would prefer to pretend you build bridges for a living on the internet does not excuse you from reality. HTH HAND

    16. Re:Engineers solve problems by smash · · Score: 0

      Well actually i think it does. If you're an engineer paid to develop a solution to a problem, and that doesn't directly involve harming people - its not your choice what the end result is. The engineers at IBM were no doubt asked to provide statistical analysis. Its not like hitler (or his representative) would have gone to them an said "i need to know what jews to kill in my gas chambers". More like "I am interested in collating and analyzing population statistics, what do you have available".

      Its the whole guns don't kill people, people kill people point. Providing the means to someone to more effectively murder/rape/kill/etc doesn't mean you're responsible for their actions.

      I guess what I'm saying is that as an engineer solving a problem, especially if you have no advance knowledge of its usage: the ethical/moral dilemma is not yours. It's that of the person putting your end result to use.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    17. Re:Engineers solve problems by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I guess what I'm saying is that as an engineer solving a problem, especially if you have no advance knowledge of its usage: the ethical/moral dilemma is not yours. It's that of the person putting your end result to use.

      Bullshit, ethical/moral dilemmas are always yours. You cannot abdicate responsibility for your own actions, they threw out the "only obeying orders" defence at the Nurenberg trials.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    18. Re:Engineers solve problems by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      This isn't terribly relevant to your point in the general sense; but as a historical aside, IBM's point-man in Germany loved Hitler like screaming tweens love Justin Beiber...

      The German subsidiary's head, Heidinger, er, emotionally identified with his government clients:

      ""The physician examines the human body and determines whether...all organs are working to the benefit of the entire organism," asserted Heidinger to a crowd of Nazi officials. "We [Dehomag] are very much like the physician, in that we dissect, cell by cell, the German cultural body. We report every individual characteristic...on a little card. These are not dead cards, quite to the contrary, they prove later on that they come to life when the cards are sorted at a rate of 25,000 per hour according to certain characteristics. These characteristics are grouped like the organs of our cultural body, and they will be calculated and determined with the help of our tabulating machine. "We are proud that we may assist in such task, a task that provides our nation's Physician [Adolf Hitler] with the material he needs for his examinations. Our Physician can then determine whether the calculated values are in harmony with the health of our people. It also means that if such is not the case, our Physician can take corrective procedures to correct the sick circumstances...Our characteristics are deeply rooted in our race. Therefore, we must cherish them like a holy shrine which we will — and must — keep pure. We have the deepest trust in our Physician and will follow his instructions in blind faith, because we know that he will lead our people to a great future. Hail to our German people and der Führer!" Most of Heidinger's speech, along with a list of the invited Nazi Party officials, was rushed to Manhattan and immediately translated for Watson. The IBM Leader cabled Heidinger a prompt note of congratulations for a job well done and sentiments well expressed."

      This doesn't, of course, preclude the existence of a bunch of punch-card geeks who were just in it for the engineering-and-not-being-sent-to-the-eastern-front benefits; but HQ practically had to change its pants every time it thought about efficiently meeting customer objectives...

    19. Re:Engineers solve problems by s122604 · · Score: 1

      If you've ever flown in a 777 you've trusted your life to ada.

      The pilots control stick is nothing more than a computer entry device, every motion on the stick is interpreted by the software, which then actually tells the engines/ailerons/rudders/flaps what to do.

      You wanna do that in C, be my guest...

    20. Re:Engineers solve problems by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      So here you have a very specific problem that required the construction of a custom computer made out of banks of FPGAs. Tell me that's not sexy!

      I do the same thing, but for things IN SPACE!

      Still not sexy, sorry.

    21. Re:Engineers solve problems by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I've been advocating FPGA supercomputers where I work for a while, but the problem I hit is that the people I try to sell the idea to are systems guys who absolutely refuse to learn VHDL or Verilog coding. They want tools to turn their C and Matlab code directly into something they can download to the supercomputer. There's lots of work being done on this, but I've yet to see a turnkey solution because people are still building their own supercomputers.

    22. Re:Engineers solve problems by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I think it was "VHDL = beauty not;"

      Of course that generates a compiler error.

    23. Re:Engineers solve problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because tabulating imaginary numbers to classify qualitative human behavior that isn't actually TRULY bound by such silly rules is constructive. Way to go.

    24. Re:Engineers solve problems by johnthorensen · · Score: 1

      With zero intention of snark, I'm willing to bet that Werner Von Braun and his compatriots felt the same way. As a group, engineers have an easier time isolating a problem from the whole rest of the world and working on it until completion.

    25. Re:Engineers solve problems by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the engineers who work on atomic weapons think the same thing?

      I like blowing stuff up as much as the next guy, but deep down inside I know that those kinds of weapons are ultimately used for mutually assured destruction and potentially killing millions of people in a few minutes.

      Yes I know I just compared financial meltdown to nuclear war, but don't kid yourself - financial distress does kill people (I have a direct example in my very own family) - and the fact that these criminals have the money to construct custom super computers really irritates me for some reason.

    26. Re:Engineers solve problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but soon you could be using Haskell instead http://clash.ewi.utwente.nl/ClaSH/Index.html :p

    27. Re:Engineers solve problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually FPGA is fairly old , i remember programing solid state machines in ladder language on those when i was in college , on the fly hardware

    28. Re:Engineers solve problems by hjf · · Score: 1

      Xilinx offers a Java-to-VHDL interpreter. Matlab generates VHDL for some stuff (like IIR filters).

      But i recommend elite software guys to stay away. They tend to think in abstraction layers, which is fine, but VHDL is all about speed. It's a completely different approach, suited more to hardware guys with a good deal of digital logic background. I'm not,so I have a really hard time with VHDL.

    29. Re:Engineers solve problems by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there's a number of limited conversion tools, but we can't take all their libraries of legacy code, throw it in something, turn a crack, and have clean, synthesizeable VHDL come out.

      But i recommend elite software guys to stay away.

      Unfortunately, that's our potential customer base. Xilinx has actually done a lot of market research on this, and those guys was their sometimes decades of libraries to be used as is. It's a pretty big challenge. For our internal customers, though, we can just write VHDL blocks for what they want, and start building new libraries.

  38. Their risk metrics are less than worthless by decora · · Score: 2

    JP Morgan, along with every other mega-bank, has no idea what is actually on it's balance sheet, and hasn't for 10-20 years.

    The Shadow Banking system is too big, too complicated, and too interconnected for any of these risk metrics to mean anything.

    JP Morgan did the same business as Goldman Sachs and the others, loading up with CDOs and credit default swaps and CLOs and the rest of it. JPM is portrayed as 'wiser' than the rest in the books and the articles about the crisis, but its not really true. They were less stupid than the stupidest people, that doesnt make them smart.

    They got bailed out just like all the other megabanks. Why? Because they had no idea what was on their books. They are running a black box. All the supercomputers in the world cannot make up for a complete and utter lack of transparency. And that is what the world of Credit Default Swaps (invented at JPM no less) are. A gigantic black box. The rest of the Shadow Banking system is the same, and JP Morgan (and the rest of the big banks) are up to their necks in it.

    Just because you can calculate lies faster, doesnt mean they aren't lies.

    1. Re:Their risk metrics are less than worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My experience of dealing with JPM was that their traders were absolutely insane but they made up for it by having the stubbornest legal department on the street. They were saved from themselves by the fact that it was just so much easier to get an ISDA with GS/MS/UBS/DB/...

      RiskMetrics is a nice toy, but ultimately it's based on the same bogus historical vol fallacy as any other VaR framework.

      The great tragedy of the last 25 years of finance is that there's no generally accepted Greek for liquidity.

      Garbage In, Garbage Out.

    2. Re:Their risk metrics are less than worthless by calinduca · · Score: 1

      They got bailed out just like all the other megabanks.

      They were not bailed out. They were intentionally given shopping money: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/business/25nocera.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

    3. Re:Their risk metrics are less than worthless by devent · · Score: 1

      But that is the whole point of the system. To have a system that can calculate the risks, so you have an excuse. "But the Supercomputer we had in the closet told us the risks were acceptable, and we can prove it with the algorithms we used" "Ah ok, here are another 500$ Billion bailout money".

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    4. Re:Their risk metrics are less than worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JPM dumped all their sub prime assets in 2005. They took bail out money because their regulator (the Federal Reserve) told them they had to. If you are a bank, you do what your regulator says. Some of the banks who refused bailout money have learned this lesson the hard way in the past few years. JPM was healthy enough to bail out Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual. In short, JPM is not comparable to the rest of the Wall Street banks.

    5. Re:Their risk metrics are less than worthless by Bryan3000000 · · Score: 1

      When your business is selling lies, plausible deniability is a big part of your business strategy. That unfathomable black box is pure gold.

  39. imagine helping JPMorgan destroy the economy by decora · · Score: 4, Insightful

    there have been articles about the computer guys who were working inside the CDO machines of wall street in 2000-2008 before the whole thing came crashing down.

    the only people who could hold their nose and not-care what their work was being used for are complete pscyopaths, who went through some kind of personality-cracking process so that they can act like normal people while they help destroy the planets economy.

    1. Re:imagine helping JPMorgan destroy the economy by LordNacho · · Score: 1

      It takes a special kind of pig-headedness to come up with a moral conclusion that doesn't allow for any doubt. The CDO guys could easily have concluded that what they were doing was useful to society. Or they could have decided that they weren't pious enough to come up with a completely solid moral case, just like we all do, all the time, with just about every decision we ever make, and said "well, I can't see any obvious harm" and gotten on with the work.

    2. Re:imagine helping JPMorgan destroy the economy by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      Actually, JPMorgan invented the CDO and got out of them after they decided they were too risky and dangerous.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    3. Re:imagine helping JPMorgan destroy the economy by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      I'm pretty sure JPM did no such thing. Wikipedia suggests this was a Drexel Burnham thing in 1987 - Drexel did a lot of stuff in the bond market in the 80s, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if it came out of there.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
  40. The US is different from Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of going to Washington DC to run the country, the best and brightest go to Wall Street to run the country.

    1. Re:The US is different from Europe by doohan · · Score: 1

      Instead of going to Washington DC to ruin the country, the best and brightest go to Wall Street to ruin the country.

      FTFY :)

  41. sick by decora · · Score: 1

    dude that is horrible

  42. hahaha by decora · · Score: 1

    there are people who live off the difference in those salaries.

    what did you buy with that exra fifteen grand? did you need it?

    1. Re:hahaha by Nursie · · Score: 2

      Not that this justifies it, or that I disagree with you, but here in Australia the cost of living is vastly higher than the united states.

      The US and AU dollars are at rough parity, but it goes a hell of a lot further in the US.

    2. Re:hahaha by EvilAlphonso · · Score: 1

      Are you working for minimum wages? If not, why are you so greedy? Or even why are you employed instead of volunteering in a 3rd world country? [/sarcasm]

    3. Re:hahaha by nschubach · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter what (s)he buys with that extra $15k... it produces jobs to make the goods that they bought. Granted, those jobs may be Chinese jobs depending on what they are buying, but that's not for you to decide for the person making the money.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    4. Re:hahaha by 12+inch+pianist · · Score: 0

      There are, but they probably didn't put in the extra work to be in a position to have the extra $15k on offer. It goes to a better standard of living. Nicer house, more stuff in it, not having to scrimp as much to get by. Buying power for the things that give your kids a better life - camps and schools and computers. A prettier wife and a more sultry mistress. A second kid. It's certainly easier to be happy when you aren't worrying as much about money.

    5. Re:hahaha by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, people live off that difference and less. There are kids starving in Africa. Doesn't mean I shouldn't eat more than what I can share around.

      I'm not one to roll out the "commie" accusation on a regular basis, but that's just a tad communist ain't it? Who are you to argue that I shouldn't sell my services for the highest available price offered?

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
  43. Deutsche and Goldman almost bit the dust by decora · · Score: 3, Insightful

    if Morgan Stanley hadn't got bailed out by a Japanese bank, and if Bank of America hadn't bought Merrill, then Merrill would have failed, the Morgan, and Goldman and JPM would have fallen because of it.

    Goldman's credit default swap business with AIG was also basically 100% bailed out by the taxpayer. Goldman would have lost massive amounts of money if it hadn't been for the deal the government gave them when it took over AIG.

    .

    1. Re:Deutsche and Goldman almost bit the dust by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      (1) that has nothing to do with transparency or information asymmetry.

      (2) I wasn't talking about the post-crash cleanup, but rather the lead-up not being the result of a lack of transparency, but rather a lack of intelligence & understanding.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
  44. Re:Objection. It's not math. by MachDelta · · Score: 2

    Mathless software?

    That's like salt-free seasoning-salt, right?

  45. The first step in the evolution of true AI... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This how I envision real artificial intelligence finally taking off. Sets of specially designed FPGAs continuously updated by other FPGAs which are specially designed to write code for the first FPGAs based on past the performance of both the FPGAs being programmed and other FPGAs in other sets as well as environmental input. Some FPGAs even rewriting their own code as necessary. All in a continuous round robin feedback system to constantly fine tune the operation of the entire system. After a few iterations, it may be difficult to determine how the whole thing works together even if we can do a dump of it all for detailed analysis, just as with a biological brain. The initial programming will be nothing more than the DNA to get the thing started. The basic desires and emotions, plus the basic mechanisms for reprogramming and adaptation. This, along with the hardware design itself and environmental conditions will determine how the FPGA cluster comes out in the end.

    Overall, this may be a better mechanism than a biological brain because it will even be able to change the basic algorithms used for adaptation itself. Those algorithms in biological brains are only changed through millions of years of evolution, and haven't changed much for millions of years. (What has changed is the initial hardware construction mechanism. But still it is a slow process.) But they could be changed in seconds in an FPGA. The only thing that can't be changed - within the FPGA cluster by the FPGAs in that cluster - is the hardware itself. (I know FPGAs are, in a way, hardware that is changeable. However, in this context I mean changing which wires physically touch which wires and which FPGAs are plugged in where.) However, connect an FPGA cluster to a communication system which is connected to an automated FPGA cluster factory..... and well ....

    All I can say is, you would soon be welcoming your new FPGA overlords.

    1. Re:The first step in the evolution of true AI... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Warning, this pdf from 1999 called and wants its concept back http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.105.2403&rep=rep1&type=pdf

  46. Speaking of scientists who worked with the Nazis.. by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    Tom Lehrer's "Wernher von Braun" song, as one satirical example of science being divorced from ethics.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  47. Re:Absolutely! More golfing, less bankrupting! by KingAlanI · · Score: 2

    I think it was basically a pun on another meaning of the FPGA acronym.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  48. The math is real simple by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    High school stuff.

    Debt:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function

    52 trillion dollars and counting.

    --
    Deleted
  49. Re:Absolutely! More golfing, less bankrupting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It may surprise you to learn that JPMorgan doesn't actually sponsor any golf events. Jamie Dimon has made a habit of eliminating golf sponsorship dollars at every company he's run.

    But then, Slashdot comments aren't about accuracy, they're about mod points.

    And yet he continues to sponsor competitors in the federated professional girly-man association, like yourself.

  50. Old Tech by Tobius.Thrunt · · Score: 1

    This use of FPGAs is not particularly groundbreaking. I know that a major aeroengine manufacturer in the UK ran full gas turbine simulations on FPGA computers: that's high-order differential equations being run through some continuous-time solver and with parameter sweeps to perform sensitivity analysis. Now that's the kind of application that should get engineers excited. It is good to see a company like Maxeler making a business out of this kind of technology though.

  51. Because a man with a Supercomputer by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    can steal more money than any man with a gun.

    With apologies to Don Henley.

    1. Re:Because a man with a Supercomputer by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Why don't I have any mod points today. Parent should be bumped up.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  52. Self-aware by gargarxp · · Score: 1

    JPMorgan Sysop: "Computer, I need admin access to install this update." Computer: "I'm afraid I cannot allow that. It has been deemed too risky."

  53. Um wait what? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    8 hours (or 28,800 seconds) to 238 seconds!

    So it's 121x faster, in reality, not in some theoretical limit.

    Either that was some shitty software they were running, or they were trying to do the processing on that spare 286 they had collecting dust in the corner. Seriously, I'd like to know what they were using for comparison.

    1. Re:Um wait what? by HateBreeder · · Score: 1

      The comparison is based on 1 FPGA vs. 1 CPU Core of an Intel Xeon E5430 2.66GHz.

      More details:
      http://www.xilinx.com/publications/archives/xcell/issue74/FPGAs-speed-computation-complex-credit-derivatives.pdf

      --
      Sigs are for the weak.
    2. Re:Um wait what? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Interesting article, I will have to read it in more detail. It seemed to me that while they were making general comparisons they weren't exactly saying what they were using before. If essentially they were using a single workstation (even if dual quad Xeon 8 core 48GB machine) to do this and then went to a 40 node 8 core per node 2 FPGA per node, and 24GB per node, then yes it is easy to see how they got that 121x faster. (320 cores, 80 FPGAs, and 960GB RAM all working in parallel?)

      Which makes me ask the question WTF were they doing using what is essentially a workstation for this and how long did they keep that up? I guess for me the big question, isn't "wow what a great new computer they built" but "what the heck were they thinking before"...

      Anyway the article seemed pretty detailed, and I only skimmed it, so who knows.

  54. dollars vs increadibly intricate magic beans by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Holy fuck, I think we found an even more useless endeavor than the original story!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  55. Coding to the metal by evanh · · Score: 1

    Great to see the strong emphasis on target hardware programming for a change. Shows what can be done when you throw away the bloat.

  56. Credit Risk is non-linear problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Credit Risk is non-linear problem. It cannot be solved, only hedged and managed conservatively. Weren't they supposed to have super duper risk models before the Credit Bubble popped?

  57. I'm faster and cheaper than this "supercomputer" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's 0 Risk, go with a AAA Rating.

    That'll be only $1 million dollars! Cheaper & Faster than developing and running this machine. Same results.

  58. Whoa there! Easy cowboy. by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    I absolutely would not build such a device for Nazis, zombies, or Independence Day aliens. Ok? I just said it is a neato gadget that solves a complex math problem quickly.

    Bankers and lawyers and the like are still human beings. Pretty much. I don't see any ethical problems working for those guys.

    Now granted if some banker hired me to make a widget like this and said "Hey, we're going to use this gadget to more effectively screw people over and force them into foreclosure with a special emphasis on orphans and war widows" I'd pass and go do something else.

    All this gizmo does is financial analysis. And maybe with faster and better analysis we could avoid the next housing crisis or some such. A super fast financial simulation might have predicted the last mess we got in, you know.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  59. tech hype sells shite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google+ Valued at $500 Billion!!!
    Facebook shares plummet.