Slashdot Mirror


Behind the Parting of IBM and Blue Waters

An anonymous reader writes "The News-Gazette has an article about the troubled Blue Waters supercomputer project, providing some new information about why IBM and the University of Illinois parted ways back in August. Quoting: 'More than three dozen changes, most suggested by IBM, would have delayed the Blue Waters project by a year ... The requested changes caused friction as early as December 2010, eight months before IBM pulled out, leaving the project to look for a new vendor for the supercomputer. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show Big Blue and the Big U asserting their rights in lengthy and increasingly testy, but always polite, language. In the documents, IBM suggested that if changes were not made, the project would become overly expensive.'"

10 of 36 comments (clear)

  1. Re:IBM warning for cost overrun?? by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

    Isn't that the truth? IBM is definitely the consultant to call if you want to learn how to do things as inefficiently and as expensively as possible.

  2. There's an Inherent Conflict Here by BBCWatcher · · Score: 2

    One part of the article: "John Melchi, a senior associate director at NCSA, said last week that there is a variety of vendors available, which he compared to a choice of car dealers." Then another part: "Though she declined to answer technical questions, the FOIA documents mention clock speed as an issue."

    OK, supercomputer vendorscar dealers, raise your hands: how many of you have 4+ GHz CPUs to sell? Standard, commercially available POWER7 cores run up to 4.25 GHz. That's the second highest clock speed CPU in the world, and by a considerable margin. (The highest in the world? this one, at 5.2 GHz.)

    Could it be that academics demanded their idea of perfection and were unsatisfied with mere best available reality? That's never happened before.

    1. Re:There's an Inherent Conflict Here by antifoidulus · · Score: 2

      Well, it probably has to do with heat more than anything else. The whole idea of this supercomputer was that it would be the most energy efficient petaflop machine in the world largely because they intended to use passive(water, and in the winter, cold air) cooling as much as possible. However, at least from what little unredacted material was released, that didn't look like it was going to happen, not this year anyway.

  3. Wait, what? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 2, Interesting

    IBM told you to take your $300 million project somewhere else? If that doesn't say VOLUMES about your project management/specification process, I don't know what does.

    1. Re:Wait, what? by level380 · · Score: 2

      Your 100% correct.... IBM walked away cause they screwed up the quote/pricing and couldn't deliver what they quoted and make money, hence the recommended 'changes' errr 'fixes' to the system, ie to pad out the wallets of IBM!

    2. Re:Wait, what? by Meeni · · Score: 2

      This is the bleeding edge of computer engineering. Nobody knows precisely what the final cost will be before actually building the machine, and how it will actually perform outside of the HPL benchmark. We sure have ideas on cost and performance, and the peak performance is very well known before hand, but the actual maximum performance and cost are totally experimental, in these 1-off machines. In a better economy, the vendor is willing to take the loss for the advertisement he receives from being "the most powerful computer in the world", which definitely helps sell the smaller size machines off the same design (think BG/L and P or Cray XT4 which sell like hot cakes). In the current economy, nobody, not even IBM, has the cashflow to absorb several tens of millions loss on a marketing operation.

  4. Hertz is not the issue by garyebickford · · Score: 2

    It may be that other vendors appear to be able to do the project for less money per TFLOP. If (example with made up numbers) an SC based on the POWER7 cores has 100,000 cores and they cost $1000 per core, but another Intel-based SC with 200,000 cores can do the same work and costs $400 per core with the same operating cost, then the latter machine is cheaper for the performance required - which is the figure of merit.

    --
    It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  5. Illinois by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Illinois is broke as all hell. They're setting themselves up to be the next California. I moved out around a year ago before they raised state income tax. At that time they hadn't paid any of the in state colleges what they were owed for around 18 months.

    U of I also came out with a genius plan to 'lock in' your rate for 4 years, so if there is a short fall, the next year is going to have a huge jump in tuition. It's getting to the point where in-state for U of I is as expensive as out of state if you were to go to Purdue, Michigan, UW Madison, etc. Out of state tuition is up near the cost of private schools.

    1. Re:Illinois by Meeni · · Score: 2

      Money for building the computer essentially comes from NSF. U.I.U.C. provides for a marginal part of the cost.

  6. Re:Pun in title by nschubach · · Score: 2

    The requested changes caused friction as early as December 2010, eight months before IBM pulled out

    What about the sexual innuendo?

    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.