Slashdot Mirror
World's Fastest Supercomputer to be Linux
xinit was one of the people who pointed us to the CNET story running about the possibility that a current bid by SGI for a supercomputer could be run on Linux. The supercomputer could be the fastest in the world at time of its production. SGI has confirmed the bid, saying it's being targeted for 2001, if the bid is accepted. The placement would be Los Alamos National Laboratory.
The article is rampant speculation. This does not mean that it couldn't happen, although I wouldn't hold my breath.
/. effect)
Perhaps we need a new term for a product that even the company which is supposed to be developing it is unwilling to speculate on.
Any votes for:
assware (as in the journalist pulled one out of his ass).
deadlineware (just meeting a deadline)
slashdotware (targeted at attracting the
pipedreamware...
you get the picture
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Unicos runs on the Cray family of supercomputers such as the T90 and SV1 families of vector processing supercomputers (which use custom designed vector processors) or the T3E family of massively parallel supercomputers (which use DEC Alpha processors). SGI is spinning off Cray or something effectively similar to that. SGI won't be releasing any Unicos running computers in the future.
SGI also makes massively parallel computers, which if properly configured (read lots and lots of processors) are supercomputer class machines. These machines presently run, hold on to your hats, IRIX. These machines presently use MIPS processors. One of these machines is part of the ASCI contract (Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative) and is based on an Origin 2000 system.
Right now SGI is developing CC-NUMA computers (the same multiprocessing technology behind the Origin 2000 computers) using Intel IA-64 processors. Rather than attempting to port IRIX to an Intel processor or pretending that Windows NT will scale SGI is relying on Linux. Right now Linux can't do it, but SGI is working on improving that aspect of Linux. This is all stuff thats been posted to slashdot before. Here's a blurb to that effect.
There are several Linux clusters in the top 500, not individual computers and certainly not anything that could replace an E10K easily. While Beowulf is great for a certain class of parallelizable problems. A Big Iron database server such as the E10K is useful for it's single system image and huge memory access as well as fault tolerance and failover capablities in hardware and software. I'm not convinced that Linux will ever be used in such as system, since the advantages of open source are not as great in an environment where there are few end users, and where the end users already are spending enormous amounts of money on hardware, software, and support contracts. So the cost of an OS (really just the price of the OS support contract) is minimal in comparison to other costs. And the ability of the hardware to work tightly with the OS is a major selling point.
Linux will continue to thrive in the low-end and will migrate up to more and more powerful servers as they get cheaper and used more generally. High Availability solutions are already beginning to surface, as with TurboLinux. This will probably be the way to go for most modest sized enterprise applications.
The only way Linux will get onto a Big Iron box is for SGI, IBM or Sun to put it on there. The only good reason to do this would be to ease migration from low end solutions running on Linux. Or to appease the PHB's that demand a Linux based solution (just wait...It'll happen). Since they wouldn't abandon their current customers, they would be supporting two OSes in the same space with the same developers for quite some time. While the Linux solution would be open source, there would not be great advantages to this since the user community would be so small.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Another example of Linux advocates jumping the gun and claiming an unearned victory? Sure looks like it.
They could use VMWare :-)
But seriously, as I have mentioned in other posts, this is unconfirmed speculation about an unbuilt machine. FUD might be bad, but vaporware is worse. This appears to be slashdotware (a product invented by the journalist to attract hits).
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
When Steven Chen left Cray to start (SuperComputer systems?) they took over the old PC Board facilites in Eau Claire.
This was back in the days when the model for a fast machine was a big processor. And lo and behold, with the funding they had (read: NSA) they were able to produce a big Al clad box that DID run.
The OS they used for that project?
Linux.
What happened? Well, processors got faster and cheaper. So the need for a hi dollar mondo machine has fallen off. And today, the whole supercomputer industry is hurting.
So, a Cray/Chen/SGI/Linux connection. And I'm betting the 'linux champions' from Chen's venture are now back working for Cray/SGI. (and Intel picked up the other stragglers)
Something else to think about:
The OS is nothing more than a way to make the hardware useful. And, if the company can use the work of others, it lowers their development costs. Thus, it is now a race to the bottom (cost wise) with OpenSourced BSD and GNU/Linux being the lowest development costs and licencing fees.
SGI is fighting to exist, and OpenSource will help them do just that.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
They would be better off starting with Solaris for this project.
They talk about MS spreading FUD, the MS marketers could learn things from many of the posters here on /.
BTW, did you hear that IBM is standardizing all their desktops on Windows2000? If Linux is soooo much better why is that?
I've read about computations which determine the mass of a proton within the context of a particular physics theory.
The result would be a single floating point number! Or maybe I'm just simplifying things...
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
You know, I have to wonder, when will you people realize that it's a pipedream?
If this system is to be ready by 2001, and is to be faster than ASCI Red (9,282 Intel Pentium Pro 200MHz with 1024k cache each, using proprietary interconnects (IP over SCSI, IIRC)) then it's not going to happen.
Even if the gov't is willing to sacrifice the reliability of the system, Linux is not ready and will not be for many years. Period. You're talking of going from 2 processors, which only works on x86 and Alpha currently, to over a thousand.
Sorry, folks, it isn't going to happen. It's a matter of rapid development, and availability. Sure, SGI could probably do it, but not by due date. Nor would it perform as necessary due to the requirement of extensive assembly-level optimization in both compilers and kernels.
ASCI Blue Pacific, IBM's entry, is one of the most powerful computers in the world. And what I'm about to say will probably send most of you into denial and/or shock.
Blue Pacific isn't customized all that much. In fact, barely customized. It's nearly the same machine you can order for your business today. Perhaps even slightly slower.
That's right - ASCI Blue Pacific CTR SP Silver and ASCI Blue Pacific, #11 and #2 respectively on the Top 500 list, are retail systems with some additional software. IBM's SP Silver in Poughkeepsie is a retail SP.
Shocking, isn't it? That someone can build a supercomputer that any business can buy. IBM holds a *lot* of the first 50. You don't see Sun till 54 with a machine that was totally custom built. Hell, look at #20! IBM SP Power3 200MHz. *200MHz!* And it smokes 480 supercomputers! That should tell you something right there. Now, SGI's talking about, more than likely, an x86 supercomputer or IA64 supercomputer, that's supposed to run Linux, have more than a thousand processors, and outperform ASCI Red? Nope, 'fraid not, folks. Maybe in 5 or 6 years, but not one and a half. Sorry. Deal with it.
-RISCy Business | Rabid unix guy, networking guru
your company here.
shelby != ford
>>No, if they go with Linux it'll be distributed to the US government(/military). The US government and SGI are separate entities, therefore that counts as distribution. The GPL applies, and SGI has to release all its source code patches on request.
True, but only to the US government(/military). SGI is under NO obligation to release source or binary to ANYONE else.
Its really sad when Slashdot gets to the point where something like this is not moderated up, and the author has to hide behind an AC. Yes it is a fact that NT scales better than Linux. Why you would want NT vs. Solaris or something more stable, i don't know, but I suppose uptime is not as important for a Supercomputer than it is for a server. When it gets down to it NT is just better for some things. Although I doubt either Linux or NT will scale well enough for a super computer. Now if they could port BeOS to an 8 proc IA64 cluster that would be something. Ohhhhhhh.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Note that the GPL does not require that code changes be submitted to the general public; it only dictates that source code be made available to whoever receives the binaries. If SGI decides that keeping these linux code changes to itself will give them a competitive advantage, they can release the source code exclusively to their customer, without violating the GPL.
-- Guges --
I remember being told by my father-in-law (who is an IBMer) that the reason that IBM didn't make a bid for this is that they didn't feel that they could make enough money on the project to justify it. I was just doing some Big Brother....uhhh....Blue bashing.
And actually the saying _does_ go "No one ever got fired for buying IBM.
Read the rest of it... it's a troll.
Oh wait, your post is too.
heh
if your definition of a scalable OS is one that runs GNOME i have a nice Pentium 166 super computer that runs GNOME great, i think $10mil will be sufficient
Lets see... Cplant at Sandia national labs is bigger than the Los Alamos one 60miles north(by the bird) which is Avalon. The ASCI Blue will not be scrapped or moved when they build the new one.. I used to live in Los Alamos and there are a lot of different groups and divisions in that laboratory. So Those machines will more than likey not even be in the same division or building.. Blade
Blue Mountain has two parts, an open and a secure side. As far as I can tell (and this is not terribly surprising), only details on the open side are available from press releases, etc. Anyway, it's a big beefy SGI Origin2000 system, with lots and lots of boxes each holding lots and lots of processors. (Sorry about the vagueness here -- you can probably find details if you look hard enough.) We're talking thousands of processors here, in case that wasn't abundantly clear.
My slightly-biased opinion would be that, in light of the many millions of dollars which were undoubtedly spent on said machines, it is extremely unlikely that the cluster would be ditched anytime in the near future, even if we end up getting a faster cluster -- you can always use more computing power. :-)
For lots more info, check out this press release, which gives some (now outdated) details on nirvana, the open part of blue mountain. Also, the ACL site at Los Alamos is pretty good, though a big PR-y. It also has details about the (currently extant) Linux cluster, in case you're interested. Finally, if you're curious about the real details of the Blue Mountain operating environment, you can take a look at this page, which has lots of good info.
Have fun.
I wonder if Kasporov will try beat it at chess.
---
"...silence is a dangerous sound."
You are correct in noting that distinction between fastest and fastest known.
SGI naturally cannot pre-announce specifics nor will I comment on the specific system bid mentioned in the origianl article. But, the general concept of the origianl article is also correct. Some SGI special bids as well as future supercomputer products (both of the vector and non-vector type) will be/are Linux based.
My supervisor was at that big parallel computing conference 2 weeks ago, and he told me that the number of nodes at Sandia amounted to 9000.
;)
Is that correct I wonder, last time I checked they were talking about.. 4500 nodes.., hmm are those dual?
Whatever, I'm sure Sandia will get some upgrade by 2001.. But I like the idea of fastest computer being a Beowulf cluster.
--exa--
Slashdot is lots of machines, DejaNews is lots of machines, Etoys may or may not be lots of machines.
Frankly enterprise ready is a meaningless buzzword, but I at least, tend to think of large single system image Big Iron database servers like the E10K. In that respect neither Linux nor Microsoft is enterprise ready.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
It's worth reading the article before posting!
Female Prison Rape in NY
Female Prison Rape in NY
Linux is good, but it deserves to have it's triumphs accurately reported. The supercomputer in question is a bid which does not necessarily specify Linux and will not necessarily be built. Contrary to what the Slashdot summary said, SGI did not even confirm that Linux is a possibility. All they confirmed was that they made a bid. The rest is speculation and wishful thinking.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
I doubt that. Maybe in the days when all the results came straight out on the line printer... :-)
Female Prison Rape in NY
No, they didn't even confirm the possibility of using Linux, unlike the Slashdot summary stated. I suspect that they will use a tried and true method that demonstrates their strengths in high end Cray and Irix technology. After all, the #1 supercomputer is not built for profit, but as an advertising tool.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Worth reading the original story before posting!
Hypothetically, if they were in the running, they might well say "Okay, our solution could run Linux if you want. Remember, no-one ever got fired for buying IBM!" Not those exact words, obviously.
Female Prison Rape in NY
They wouldn't say "That's possible" - a few years ago, Linux was regarded as a fringe OS. If nothing else it's a testament to how far Linux has come (but we knew that already! :-)
Female Prison Rape in NY
There are only three processor types that SGI would consider: MIPS, ia32, ia64
On MIPS, the OS would be Irix.
On ia32 it could be eithor Irix or Linux
On ia64 it would be Linux.
Since SGI is planning on a big move twards ia64/Linux... it's not all that unlikely that they're going to want to use that for the supercomputer.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
All I can find in the actual article (not the /. summary) is that they confirm that they are making a bid. I can't find anything from SGI which confirms the possibility of Linux. I would be quite surprised by this if it were the case.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Female Prison Rape in NY
It's run for the Department of Energy.
SGI has more than one line of supercomputers. ASCI Blue Mountain is an SGI Origin2000 machine. I don't think we can expect to see Linux on Crays in the near future. (And didn't SGI just divest Cray again?)
It's true that Linux hasn't currently "mastered" 16-CPU SMPs. If Larry McVoy is to be believed, that's probably a good thing for the correctness and stability of the kernel.
CPlant is number 129 on the TOP500 list; it's the fastest Linux machine currently listed that runs Linux. It used to be below 100, but more new machines were added.
The 1000-node genetic-programming cluster mentioned recently on Slashdot, and distributed.net, are not on the list at all; to get on the TOP500 list, you need to run LINPACK fast. This (a) does not interest some people, and (b) is not well-suited to the structure of some clusters. A parallel machine that is very fast for some tasks may be very poor at others.
With regard to DES cracking: the EFF's DES cracker, which cost less than a quarter of a million dollars to build, cracks DES keys in a matter of days. Such a machine can scale linearly. The fact that distributed.net takes a month to crack a single DES key does not demonstrate that the NSA requires months to do the same.
Generally, "secure" DoD sites are not connected to the Internet, auditing or no.
"supercomputer" and "enterprise server" are very different categories. "enterprise server" means "mainframe killer" -- that is, reasonable CPU speed, fast I/O, but above all, reliability. Linux is definitely fit for supercomputing, and is being used for supercomputing all over the world. Linux is probably not quite yet fit for being an "enterprise server".
However, many supercomputers do indeed need lots of disk storage.
With regard to http://www.gapcon.org/listg.html: someone said, "You will notice there are no Linux installations in that list." Actually, they list a bunch of machines from Atipa Linux Solutions at LANL, the Avalon Beowulf at LANL, the Parnass2 Beowulf at the University of Bonn, the LoBoS Beowulf at the National Institutes of Health, the Centurion Beowulf at the University of Virginia, and possibly some others. They're a minority, but they're way cheap, and they're growing fast.
With regard to the GPL: if I hack something proprietary into Linux, I need to give source, licensed under the GPL, only to people whom I give binaries to. I am under no obligation to give source to anyone else. However, the person to whom I give it can put it up on their FTP site if they want.
Kragen Sitaker, current Beowulf FAQ maintainer
Actually no, nobody is saying that the NSA is using a general purpose supercomputer to crack DES. Specialized hardware is clearly the way to go. Witness The DES cracker built by the EFF for US$250,000. This is a purely brute force attack. Even so, along with Distributed.net, they broke DES in 22 hours. The NSA could probably use more efficient techniques of cryptanalysis and more expensive hardware to be faster.
As far as I know, no one in the private sector has built such a beast for cracking RC5, but it could certainly be done.
The NSA would typically use a supercomputer only for the last step in certain factoring algorithms for breaking RSA or other such problems that require a single system image and huge amounts of memory. This was the technique used by a group of researchers that cracked a 512 bit RSA key. The first phase was distributed, but the last step required a single supercomputer.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
I apologize. I didn't see the "T30" when I glossed over the C-net post. This is a bit confusing. There is no "T30" product. It might mean a "T3E" but those use DEC Alpha processors and run a UNICOS variant. It's possible but highly unlikely that Cray is building a follow on to the T3E based on IA-64 and Linux. I consider it highly unlikely because they'd have to have started the hardware development cycle long ago to make 2001. The Cray division was supplying me with a paycheck and I didn't hear any rumors about Intel based T3E follow up products. Cray is developing interesting things, but I don't think there's anything T3E-like in the pipeline. Cray won't be moving to Linux.
There's not enough information to try and figure out what the reporter heard. i.e. we don't know what was fact and what is conjecture. SGI has said that Linux is going to play a large roll in the future. SGI is going to make Linux scale beyond simple bus based 2 or 4 processor systems. Linux will be running on CC-NUMA machines.
Conjecture 1: A T3 class machine is being bid. The reporter remembered that SGI made a commitment to Linux and mixed and matched.
Conjecture 2: A CC-NUMA machine is being bid, "T30" doesn't mean anything. The machine will be running IA-64. Linux will be the operating system.
Since I don't even have a press release in my work mailbox I can't guess as to the real scenario. I'll ask for some information next week.
Sorry, following up to myself.
Conjecture 3: Hybrid system based on vector processors such as the SV1 and CC-NUMA like the O2000.
Where does it say SGI confirms they will be using Linux in the story I see it in the Slashdot summary, but unless Hemos got on the phone to SGI, I think it's likely just a misunderstanding.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
>Lets see... Cplant at Sandia national labs is >bigger than the Los Alamos one 60miles north(by >the bird) which is Avalon. I'm probably missing something here, but are you trying to say that LANL is 60 miles north of SNL? Erk, LANL is in California and SNL in New Mexico. Maybe it's just that Crack, though.
I was agreeing with you until:
BTW, did you hear that IBM is standardizing all their desktops on Windows2000? If Linux is soooo much better why is that?
The real answer is that what is best for me is what is best for me. That could be Linux, Windows, or Xenix. Frankly the actions of IBM or SGI are not extremely important in this choice unless they demonstrate that my particular application is going to run better (according to my criteria) than another.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Correction - Microsoft has announced that Windows 2000 "DataCenter" will support 32 CPUs, and journalists are speculating that this product will ship Q2 or Q3 2000. (Of course, they were speculating that Win2000 would ship last month.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Microsoft could probably go back to using Exchange on hotmail.com if they had one of those ;)
The second fastest current supercomputer (ASCI Blue) resides at LANL as well. Will they be running these concurrently, or are they scrapping their current cluster to put this one in?
The current fastest, ASCI Red, is located in Sandia National Labs. Both these systems were built by Intel I believe, and are gigantic clusters running some custom software.
The biggest Linux box/cluster/whatever is Avalon I believe, currently ranked #160, and also resides in LANL. Wasn't there one in the 50-60 range as well?
Personally I can't see this being anything but a good thing for Linux, both in terms of another selling point (Hey, it's good enough to be on the world's fastest computer!) as well as (hopefully) advancements in scalability (I can't imagine SGI implementing a massive cluster of single CPU boxen, meaning they may take a long hard look at SMP code and optomize it for whatever platform they're considering rolling out for this).
And, it has to be said:
Imagine a Beowulf of these things! Heh...
Betting Quake is the second software ported. The first being a web browser for high speen pr0n =P What else do people do with fast computers!
uh.. exchange doesn't run on Linux or any other decent OS - it only runs on windows nt.... (lame-o!)
If they're planning on running Linux on a supercomputer, it better have "enterprise" grade features that they've been promising us -- tested, signed, sealed and delivered.
... categories that Linux just generally needs help with. In its current state, as much as I love Linux on the desktop and commodity-grade-hardware server, I can't even imagine it on a supercomputer -- let alone the world's fastest.
Journaling file systems, multithreaded networking,
-Chris
No, I'm sorry folks. That line is to be read:
to be installed in Nate Fox's garage (NFg) in suburban Los Angeles.
You'd think a major publication like C|Net would get thier facts straight ;)
...Nothing is so smiple it cant get screwed up.
-----
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed...
How do you build a reliable system from thousands of CPU boards? There will be plenty of hard and soft faults in a system with that many components.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Anyway, I apologise for the dodgy moderating. If this post even manages to get through. Hmm.
--
This comment was brought to you by And Clover.
I bet so......
SMP is very much on the forfront of kernel development.
I honestly expect Linux to out perform NUMA within the year 2001.
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
I am smiling ear to ear.
Linux running the "Worlds Fastest Super Computer".
It seems to me that if it is good enough for the scientists at Los Alamos then ANY THING that Microsoft says about Linux will seem like FUD.
Even if some of what they say it is true.
Cray used to be well established as the super computer company. I remember no MS FUD about Cray. I wonder what they will say about this.
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
Hmm, they seem to have complete faith that Linux multiprocessor support will be adequate by then?
Female Prison Rape in NY
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux. But let's be realistic here. That article contained little to no factual data. The only thing they're running on is conjecture -- SGI has expressed interest in Linux in the past, so they're assuming this hundred-million-dollar multi-teraflop machine will run it? I'll believe it when I see it.
I'll bet you, unless SGI come up with some sort of Beowulf solution instead of their time-tested Cray supercomputers, we'll be seeing yet another Unicos machine at the top of the "World's Fastest Supercomputers" list in a few years.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
ASCII Blue is not Intel it's SGI, it's a cluster of Origin 2000 Systems running Irix. Check out http://www.top500.org for the list of current fastest 500 supercomputers and their details.
Wakko is absolutely right when it comes to the relative merits of Linux and Unicos on SMP or parallel machine - Linux wasn't designed for that job and won't do it. Not now, not in the near future. Unicos currently runs machine with up to 2048 processors. Linux hasn't really mastered 16.
However, the proposed machine is bound to be a cluster, not a single machine. Linux will do this just fine. In fact Linux would run on ASCI Red if there were drivers for the networking hardware. (They've booted individual nodes with both Linux and NT).
So there is a possibility of Linux. I guess it might be easier to use Linux on IA64 than port IRIX/Unicos.
My reservation here is that neither the Itanic nor MIPS chips offer cutting edge performance.
Fine grained SC's are not the only way to compute nuclear (or I guess now it is anti-matter?) reactions.
_ ______________
Think super-scalable, super-reliable clusters.
______________________________________
First of all, there's quite a bit of difference between fastest and fastest known. I can't imagine both the chinese AND the american governments from having some exceedingly classified hardware that blows the pants off the open stuff(read: governmental phallus-phlashing.)
Second, the meaning of fastest is very unclear. I'd go so far to say that any system that implements a given function in software instead of hardware is going to be orders of magnitude slower than the state of the art. Witness the EFF DES cracking machine, 3D Graphics Accelerators, even Math Coprocessors. Fitting a square peg into a round hole is actually a pretty common occurance in the computer world, but it takes a relatively tortoise-like rate compared to what can be pulled off with raw gates.
That's why XISC--Extensible Instruction Set Computing--is probably the upcoming processor paradigm. Programmers need the ability to redefine round holes into square ones, so the square pegs fit right in.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
what about SETI@HOME.. and not to mention distributed.net I'm pretty sure i remember reading somewhere on the SETI@HOME site that they were the fastest supercomputer in the world (or maybe its the biggest? ahh well) or something.
Actually I kind of drifted into talking about Big Iron rather than supercomputers. Clearly they have different requirements, and one is willing to do much more tweaking and spend more money on a cutting edge machine. For Big Iron, one is worried about such boring things as support, uptime, reliability, cost etc.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
First off, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Cray division (which several people, including Hemos seem to think). This project, and the current ASCI Blue Mountain project, are both built from SGI's Origin line of servers (the SN1 is the next generation of this). Cray's unit only works with the Vector supercomputers. Also remember (from August) that SGI is going to be getting rid of this division.
Second, I'd like to point out that this article is really just speculation. Read it closely, they take a couple of facts - SGI is trying to get this contract, they are working on ramping up the scalability of Linux, and the new SN1 servers will be eventually based on the Itanium - and they try to draw a conclusion that Linux might be what is run on this supercomputer.
Now, I'm not saying that this isn't a valid argument - but Linux as an operating system has a LONG way to go before it supports the massive number of processors and amount of memory we're talking about here (Blue Mountain has 6144 processors). There is still a lot that Linux is missing.
This does not necessarily mean that SGI can't get it that far, especially with its experience in scalable OSes. I would love to see them do it. But when you already have an architecture and OS that works running on the Blue Mountain configuration, it would be going quite a bit out of their way. So, until I hear SGI themselves say "we're running Linux on T30", I'm going to be skeptical.
If they DID - hey, that'd be a GREAT push for Linux. Lets hope they go for it.
I'm one of the SysAdmins for the Centurion cluster at UVa, as well as a student in Andrew Grimshaw 's (professor who built Centurion) Operating Systems class. First of all, I'll play the part of Greg Lindahl briefly and say that Centurion is technically not a Beowulf cluster. AFAIK, part of what defines a Beowulf-class machine is one or more head nodes -- usually one -- which dispatch jobs to multiple client nodes. This is somewhat like Asymmetric Multiprocessing, in which there is a master processor which runs the OS and dispatches jobs to the slave processors. The head node(s) has more processing power, memory, etc, in order to be able to manage the other nodes. The nodes in the cluster itself are usually of homogenous composition running some freenix, usually Linux. Centurion itself consists of 128 DEC 21164 Alphas and 128 dual PII-400's, all running Linux. There are a few of us just itching to try and run LINPACK on it. :) There are also several assorted machines which serve as frontents, running anything from FreeBSD to Solaris to (ick) IRIX. There is no head node which dispatches jobs, and each node is independent of the other (no sub-clusters within the cluster). I know I'm currently stepping on a lot of toes and re-hashing a lot of info, so visit the Beowulf FAQ. Kragen's done a great job of gathering info, and it's a good read.
Secondly, Professor Grimshaw discussed the PetaFLOP project the other day, in which the LANL project is a stepping stone in. If you shell out enough money, you can have a GigaFLOP machine on your desk. If you shell out even more money, you can have a TeraFLOP machine in the raised-floor room with tons of A/C at your research center. The challenge now is to bump it up another 3 orders of magnitude. By combining SMP nodes with a message passing interface or some other form of managing distributed memory, LANL hopes to build this 30 TF machine.
However, SGI may not get the bid as C|NET reports. When the gov't spec'ed out the machines they want to have as nodes they requested 16-node processors. So let's look at the Big Boys of horsepower:
Which leaves
Just my 2 drachmas
-OWJones
Oops, sorry, my bad. I knew that SNL was DoE, but thought LANL was DoD. Regardless, though, they still have very tight information auditing, especially since most of the systems there would most likely be Q-level or higher, right? I mean, just to get onto the facility you need an L clearance (which is, of course, par for the course).
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
this just shows the level of computing that only linux can achieve...
even SGI knows that IRIX/MIPS cannot scale, cannot perform, and cant even compete with Linux feature by feature. Linux has its butt wupped hands down.
the proof is in the pudding...why else would they use linux?? only because its the best and is probably about 5 years ahead of any commercial unix in feature/performance/scalability/reliability...
welcome to the revolution!
He probable meant that ASCI Red was made by intel
treke
Security is obviously very important, but not all of the whiz-bang systems are used for classified computing, so no, you don't necessarily need a clearance to use some of them. And many areas don't require a clearance for entry. The Lab employs many foreign nationals, after all.
I'm not going to waste a moderation point on an anonymous moron like you, so I'll simply point out that you need to take some CS classes and pull your head out of your ass. Linux is fine for a lot of things, I use it and love it; but to call it more scalable than Irix is pure ignorance. Irix scales to at least 512 processors (I'm not privy to info regarding more). That is magnitudes better than Linux at 2.2.x.
Put down that copy of Redhat, say goodbye to your IRC friends and read your textbook kiddie. When you've had a few years experience with a REAL machine (Sun, HP, SGI or IBM) come back and talk about scalability.
sure IRIX scales to 512 cpus and beyond...
but does it have GNOME???
thought not...thank you, please drive through.
What are the IBM boys going to say? No big deal for them and another gigantic, overpriced SP
Heh heh. I think this'll put the scalability and HA gripes to rest.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
...that Linux has now successfully captured the "high-end" computing marketplace? ;)
30 Teraflops sounds nice and crunchy.
Linux: It's what's for dinner.
Just incase you're no businessmen, here's the translation:
:)
"yes, ofcourse we'll do it" - ummm, maybe, depends on lots of factors.
"it's possible" - but we won't do it, we might say it for publicity though.
"we can't do that! it's impossible" - not applicable, that sentence does not exist in business language.
that really puts 'confirmed the possibility' in another light, doesn't it? but ask SGI if it's possible that it will run irix or unicos, or windows, and they'll confirm it's "possible" aswell
SGI has not announced that they are going to put linux on this beast, only that it was "a possibility". Given that the Irix OS scales well beyond Linux currently I doubt they'd replace it on such short notice. The problems with Irix, namely nonstandard library layout and bad security are non-issues in a supercomputer environment.
In related news, Microsoft has confirmed that it is "possible" that WindowsCE will be used for critical life support systems in upcoming space missions. I mean come on. Neither is strictly speaking impossible, but I'd take it with a large grain of NaCl.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Check out http://www.gapcon.com/listg.html
This list of the top supercomputer sites is as close as you can get to up-to-date and authoritative in that field.
You will notice that there are no Linux installations in that list. Linux on a supercomputer has not been proven to be viable for the highest end systems yet. What happens if SGI fails to deliver? The box may be installed, it may boot, but what happens to Linux's reputation if the system can't fulfill it's mission.
Also, keep in mind that SGI does need some good press. You could say that they are desperate for good press right now.
then it means that the conspiracy stories about how easily the NSA cracks DES codes must be wrong.
...
If distributed.net, as you say, is 100 times faster than the world's fastest and it's still taking this zarking long to crack 64-bit DES
PGP should be safe for a while more.
>"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
>"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler
Uhm... this DOES mean you lost the argument...
The biggest Linux box/cluster/whatever is Avalon I believe, currently ranked #160, and also resides in LANL. Wasn't there one in the 50-60 range as well?
CPLANT. A US based lab made at least one 150 node Alpha Linux cluster, I forget what was different (better) that made it much faster, but it cracked higher into the top 100 than Avalon ever did. Last I checked it was at about 120.
Actually upon rereading the article I could only find that SGI had confirmed that they are making a bid, not that Linux is a possibility. The rest of the article is rampant speculation.
Or I could be wrong again, in which case chalk one up to a late night.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
If this get's through, it will finally make the PHB's take linux seriously. they just couldn't ignore the OS that runs the fastest computer in the world.
---
SGI: We are making a bid for the T30 supercomputer
CNET: What OS will you be using?
SGI: No comment.
CNET: (aha!) So what CPU will you be using?
SGI: No comment.
CNET: (Aha!) Can you confirm that you will be using Linux.
SGI: No comment.
CNET: AHA!!!!! (Whoops did I say that out loud?)
Later...
CNET: (Damn, I forgot to ask about alien technology, I guess I'll just go with the Linux angle. I'll throw some "experts" in there for "balance". Slashdot readers will read it....I'll be rich) Rich I tell you!! haHaHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! (cough)
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Let's be pratical. I don't think they can accomodate a OS that now can run on a notebook in a sc. Much better OS exist for that (UNICOS?). If they do, it won't be "our" linux.
I say we take the world's slowest NT machine from a few articles back and run some benchmarks on it against this new toy :) Let's see MS put *those* benchmarks on their website :) But I think NT would beat Linux out in the TCO department on that one ;)
Roses are red, violets are blue. I'm a schitzophrenic, and so am I.