As I understand it, this product is designed for the kind of companies that don't have monthly transfer caps to worry about, and can spend millions on a large data vault.
Optical media has a couple things going for it over tape:
The media is composed of 20 stacked layers of 25GB each. It is conceivable that with sufficient focusing, they can simply continue stacking layers as needed.
Despite images floating around the internet, optical disks can be accessed randomly, and there is no need for a 'DVD Rewinder'. You don't need to spend time spooling to the specific location you need before you can read the data.
They are very thin, meaning you can store half a dozen or more disks in the space used by one cartridge. Their size lends them to carousel storage. A 400-disk carousel could have a double entry reader located in the center to allow for dual sided (1TB) disks. Or you could have four readers stationed at each corner for increased concurrency. Or you could have four carousels placed around a single center reader for reduced cost. In any case, it would be drastically cheaper than the robotic loaders found in existing tape archives.
If you don't have the cash to upgrade your utility, you don't have the cash to spend 3x the cost on servers either. It's not like an extra 15A@110V is that hard to come by.
Many of the modules were designed for short term use, and simply were never intended to operate for well past 2020. One of the first Russian modules is actually planned to be detached and de-orbited later this year, replaced by a newer module. The solar panels are very expensive, very high efficiency arrays, however the same lack of atmosphere which gives them a boost versus ground based plants, also causes them to degrade from radiation faster.
The station is not going to be scrapped entirely. This new Russian module being installed later this year, and a few others, will be detached from the ISS before the ISS gets scuttled, and will be used as the basis of a new space station called the OPSEK. It is to be the first orbital dockyard in support of extra-planetary missions, where deep space craft will be sent up in individual modules, and then assembled on site, rather than being sent up in one big shot.
The truth is that a 1 MW/h SMES weighs about as much as a horseshoe.
MW/h. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
none of which I bothered to take into account, because they only help my case.
Nothing can help your case if you can't keep your god damned units straight. It makes you look like someone who is just regurgitating crap they read off some internet webring, without understanding any of its implications.
With git, you have no option BUT to pull the entire repository, and all of its data, and all of its history.
Re:It's because
on
The Rise of Git
·
· Score: 3, Informative
With git, you have no option to pull the entire repository, and all of its data, and all of its history. Aptly described by the command, you have your own local clone of the whole thing. As such, with larger projects, it becomes necessary to break the repository up into smaller, more manageable submodules. If using subversion, or some other version control system where you 'check out' rather than 'clone', it becomes possible to simply pull the current version of just the directory you want to work on. In essence each folder is automatically made a submodule.
Both strategies have their advantages and disadvantages. Every programmer is going to have their own style of work, which will be better suited towards one VCS or another. Claiming git is the perfect VCS for all occasions, as the OP did, is simply naive.
If your data center has limited power, you need to replace the data center, or upgrade the utility. Power reductions ignoring the cost of all else is foolish and short sighted. If you buy the traditional servers now, you'll only spend a third the cost of the SeaMicro box, at the expense of increased power consumption. Two years from now, you'll be able to replace all those traditional servers with more traditional servers, achieving the same performance for half the price, now consuming far less power than the SeaMicro box. Another two years, you replace them again with hardware a quarter the cost of the original, with yet lower power consumption. At the end of six years, you've consumed considerably less energy than the SeaMicro box would have, and your total cost is easily a third less.
Kerosene is around 6.7 pounds per gallon, meaning that 50000 gallons of fuel weighs around 335000 pounds, not 34000 pounds. Over 40% of the aircraft's loaded weight is spent in fuel.
How can you say the stupid things you posted? How can you not be bothered to check basic facts?
Those 2.3Ghz Opterons will do roughly twice the work per core as the Atoms,
That sounds a little low. The clock rate of the opeterons is higher, they are much wider (more superscalar), and have out of order execution. From the old netbook benchmarks, the 1st gen P3 900 (somewhat comparable to the opteron core in terms of features, but older now) runs about as fast as as the 1.6GHz atom. I would expect the opteron cores to go 3-4x as fast, at least.
Entirely possible. I intentionally chose a safe underestimate of the performance difference.
The full 1/2 TB would cost more like EUR16000. Of course at EUR8500 per box, you get 2TB RAM into the 8U. That would be equivalent to having 4GB per atom, which sounds reasonable.
The SeaMicro box I saw priced for $150K only had 1GB of memory per core, 512GB total. My estimate was for double that, 128GB per quad socket server.
$900 each for dual port 40Gbps cards
Every year it astonishes me how cheap cool stuff has got.
I'm not sure where I read they used infiniband internally, but that seems to be not the case. That's likely just an external interface. Internally, they use some custom toroidal design similar to older supercomputers, which is likely where the bulk of their cost goes, and why they rate so high on very interdependent tasks like mapreduce. However, there is still a lot of free space on that switch, so if 640GBps between the nodes doesn't cut it, another $7200 and you can double it.
I gather that the 2.3GHz 6100s are not the most efficient. At the time I got them, they were the fastest, though 2.5GHz ones are available now. If you invest in the HE versions, it will cost more per chip and probably an extra server or two to get the same performance, but that could easily wipe out the power difference.
Very likely correct. Rather than search out the best performance per watt, I was simply continuing using the same Magny-Cours chip the OP had mentioned.
Actually, you would be wrong. One of the things Intel ripped out of the desktop Atoms in the interest of cutting costs is the power management hardware. There is no clock scaling, and little difference between idle and full load power consumption. For a nettop with a single processor plugged into the wall, a couple watts one way or another won't make a noticeable difference. When you have 256 (or 384 on the larger one) all running nearly full consumption all the time, the story is different.
They're using 256 dual core Atoms, for 512 cores at 1.6Ghz. Those 2.3Ghz Opterons will do roughly twice the work per core as the Atoms, with eight cores per chip, four chips per box, a 1U box will replace roughly 32 Atoms, requiring 8U to achieve the raw power of the 10U SeaMicro box. Those 32 processors run 80W ACP each, so including memory, disk, and chipset, you're looking at 3-4kW under load, versus 2-2.5kW for the SeaMicro.
So how much will this thing cost you? The CPUs are $500 apiece. $300 for a 1U case. $800 for a board. $60 for a 4GB stick of registered ECC DDR3, times eight per processor. $275 for four 120GB SSDs. You end up around $6K per box. Now the SeaMicro uses Infiniband for its internal networking, for communication intensive tasks. Lets do the same. $900 each for dual port 40Gbps cards, and another $6K on a 36-port QLogic switch.
That adds up to just over $61K, versus $150K for the SeaMicro box of roughly equivalent performance. For nearly three times the cost, you get maybe a third lower power consumption. At worst you have double the power consumption, an extra 2kW, and say one more for the AC. That's 30 YEARS before you make up the difference in initial cost. Therein lies the problem with SeaMicro claims. They compare power consumption against hardware two and three generations old, the servers that are going to be replaced. If you actually compare them against new hardware, they're pretty mediocre.
The Burj Khalifa cost some $1.5B to construct. Assuming they can only average half of that 200MW power output, and a fairly low power selling price of $0.10/kWh, you're looking at $240K in power produced per day, or some $87M per year. Now lets assume they're using some form of rugged polycarbonate as the collector and tower. They'll probably end up with a modest maintenance cost to do upkeep on the turbines, and check over the metal framework for the tower, say $15M per year. That's payback in just 21 years, and they're expecting an 80yr lifetime out of the tower.
Now you have to realize that this is not a solid structure like Burj Khalifa. It does not have to carry hundreds of floors, with walls, furniture, elevators, and be rated for occupancy. It doesn't even have to be free standing, and can be stabilized by guy wires. The 2kft tall KVLT TV mast cost only $500k to build in 1963, which comes out to $3.5M in today's money. It's not going to cost nearly as much as you think.
This is not a heat engine. A heat engine works on the difference in pressure between a working fluid at two different temperatures. This operates on the difference in density between a working fluid at two different temperatures. Think of it more like filling a hot air or helium balloon, tying it to a rope, and generating power as the rope is spooled out.
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand it, this product is designed for the kind of companies that don't have monthly transfer caps to worry about, and can spend millions on a large data vault.
Optical media has a couple things going for it over tape:
The media is composed of 20 stacked layers of 25GB each. It is conceivable that with sufficient focusing, they can simply continue stacking layers as needed.
Despite images floating around the internet, optical disks can be accessed randomly, and there is no need for a 'DVD Rewinder'. You don't need to spend time spooling to the specific location you need before you can read the data.
They are very thin, meaning you can store half a dozen or more disks in the space used by one cartridge. Their size lends them to carousel storage. A 400-disk carousel could have a double entry reader located in the center to allow for dual sided (1TB) disks. Or you could have four readers stationed at each corner for increased concurrency. Or you could have four carousels placed around a single center reader for reduced cost. In any case, it would be drastically cheaper than the robotic loaders found in existing tape archives.
If you don't have the cash to upgrade your utility, you don't have the cash to spend 3x the cost on servers either. It's not like an extra 15A@110V is that hard to come by.
Many of the modules were designed for short term use, and simply were never intended to operate for well past 2020. One of the first Russian modules is actually planned to be detached and de-orbited later this year, replaced by a newer module. The solar panels are very expensive, very high efficiency arrays, however the same lack of atmosphere which gives them a boost versus ground based plants, also causes them to degrade from radiation faster.
The station is not going to be scrapped entirely. This new Russian module being installed later this year, and a few others, will be detached from the ISS before the ISS gets scuttled, and will be used as the basis of a new space station called the OPSEK. It is to be the first orbital dockyard in support of extra-planetary missions, where deep space craft will be sent up in individual modules, and then assembled on site, rather than being sent up in one big shot.
Interesting, but the inability to push is a shame.
The truth is that a 1 MW/h SMES weighs about as much as a horseshoe.
MW/h. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
none of which I bothered to take into account, because they only help my case.
Nothing can help your case if you can't keep your god damned units straight. It makes you look like someone who is just regurgitating crap they read off some internet webring, without understanding any of its implications.
With git, you have no option BUT to pull the entire repository, and all of its data, and all of its history.
With git, you have no option to pull the entire repository, and all of its data, and all of its history. Aptly described by the command, you have your own local clone of the whole thing. As such, with larger projects, it becomes necessary to break the repository up into smaller, more manageable submodules. If using subversion, or some other version control system where you 'check out' rather than 'clone', it becomes possible to simply pull the current version of just the directory you want to work on. In essence each folder is automatically made a submodule.
Both strategies have their advantages and disadvantages. Every programmer is going to have their own style of work, which will be better suited towards one VCS or another. Claiming git is the perfect VCS for all occasions, as the OP did, is simply naive.
Exactly. Anything hard and solid that makes it through the combustor will tear up a high pressure turbine.
If your data center has limited power, you need to replace the data center, or upgrade the utility. Power reductions ignoring the cost of all else is foolish and short sighted. If you buy the traditional servers now, you'll only spend a third the cost of the SeaMicro box, at the expense of increased power consumption. Two years from now, you'll be able to replace all those traditional servers with more traditional servers, achieving the same performance for half the price, now consuming far less power than the SeaMicro box. Another two years, you replace them again with hardware a quarter the cost of the original, with yet lower power consumption. At the end of six years, you've consumed considerably less energy than the SeaMicro box would have, and your total cost is easily a third less.
Kerosene is around 6.7 pounds per gallon, meaning that 50000 gallons of fuel weighs around 335000 pounds, not 34000 pounds. Over 40% of the aircraft's loaded weight is spent in fuel.
How can you say the stupid things you posted? How can you not be bothered to check basic facts?
When you start using units like 'megawatts per hour' to describe energy, nothing else you say engineering related has any credibility.
Manufacturing cost.
Those 2.3Ghz Opterons will do roughly twice the work per core as the Atoms,
That sounds a little low. The clock rate of the opeterons is higher, they are much wider (more superscalar), and have out of order execution. From the old netbook benchmarks, the 1st gen P3 900 (somewhat comparable to the opteron core in terms of features, but older now) runs about as fast as as the 1.6GHz atom. I would expect the opteron cores to go 3-4x as fast, at least.
Entirely possible. I intentionally chose a safe underestimate of the performance difference.
The full 1/2 TB would cost more like EUR16000. Of course at EUR8500 per box, you get 2TB RAM into the 8U. That would be equivalent to having 4GB per atom, which sounds reasonable.
The SeaMicro box I saw priced for $150K only had 1GB of memory per core, 512GB total. My estimate was for double that, 128GB per quad socket server.
$900 each for dual port 40Gbps cards
Every year it astonishes me how cheap cool stuff has got.
I'm not sure where I read they used infiniband internally, but that seems to be not the case. That's likely just an external interface. Internally, they use some custom toroidal design similar to older supercomputers, which is likely where the bulk of their cost goes, and why they rate so high on very interdependent tasks like mapreduce. However, there is still a lot of free space on that switch, so if 640GBps between the nodes doesn't cut it, another $7200 and you can double it.
I gather that the 2.3GHz 6100s are not the most efficient. At the time I got them, they were the fastest, though 2.5GHz ones are available now. If you invest in the HE versions, it will cost more per chip and probably an extra server or two to get the same performance, but that could easily wipe out the power difference.
Very likely correct. Rather than search out the best performance per watt, I was simply continuing using the same Magny-Cours chip the OP had mentioned.
You're looking at maybe 3x the total performance, and 4-5x the single threaded performance of the Atom, at roughly twice the power consumption.
Last I checked several months ago, the 256 processor (512 core) version was going for $150K.
Did the Atom provide sufficient power to run the MythTV server? If it didn't, then however cheap it may have been is irrelevant.
Actually, you would be wrong. One of the things Intel ripped out of the desktop Atoms in the interest of cutting costs is the power management hardware. There is no clock scaling, and little difference between idle and full load power consumption. For a nettop with a single processor plugged into the wall, a couple watts one way or another won't make a noticeable difference. When you have 256 (or 384 on the larger one) all running nearly full consumption all the time, the story is different.
Then fix the software, to allow you to take full advantage of the hardware.
They're using 256 dual core Atoms, for 512 cores at 1.6Ghz. Those 2.3Ghz Opterons will do roughly twice the work per core as the Atoms, with eight cores per chip, four chips per box, a 1U box will replace roughly 32 Atoms, requiring 8U to achieve the raw power of the 10U SeaMicro box. Those 32 processors run 80W ACP each, so including memory, disk, and chipset, you're looking at 3-4kW under load, versus 2-2.5kW for the SeaMicro.
So how much will this thing cost you? The CPUs are $500 apiece. $300 for a 1U case. $800 for a board. $60 for a 4GB stick of registered ECC DDR3, times eight per processor. $275 for four 120GB SSDs. You end up around $6K per box. Now the SeaMicro uses Infiniband for its internal networking, for communication intensive tasks. Lets do the same. $900 each for dual port 40Gbps cards, and another $6K on a 36-port QLogic switch.
That adds up to just over $61K, versus $150K for the SeaMicro box of roughly equivalent performance. For nearly three times the cost, you get maybe a third lower power consumption. At worst you have double the power consumption, an extra 2kW, and say one more for the AC. That's 30 YEARS before you make up the difference in initial cost. Therein lies the problem with SeaMicro claims. They compare power consumption against hardware two and three generations old, the servers that are going to be replaced. If you actually compare them against new hardware, they're pretty mediocre.
Yeah. I looked at the drawing and corrected myself shortly after hitting submit.
The Burj Khalifa cost some $1.5B to construct. Assuming they can only average half of that 200MW power output, and a fairly low power selling price of $0.10/kWh, you're looking at $240K in power produced per day, or some $87M per year. Now lets assume they're using some form of rugged polycarbonate as the collector and tower. They'll probably end up with a modest maintenance cost to do upkeep on the turbines, and check over the metal framework for the tower, say $15M per year. That's payback in just 21 years, and they're expecting an 80yr lifetime out of the tower.
Now you have to realize that this is not a solid structure like Burj Khalifa. It does not have to carry hundreds of floors, with walls, furniture, elevators, and be rated for occupancy. It doesn't even have to be free standing, and can be stabilized by guy wires. The 2kft tall KVLT TV mast cost only $500k to build in 1963, which comes out to $3.5M in today's money. It's not going to cost nearly as much as you think.
This is not a heat engine. A heat engine works on the difference in pressure between a working fluid at two different temperatures. This operates on the difference in density between a working fluid at two different temperatures. Think of it more like filling a hot air or helium balloon, tying it to a rope, and generating power as the rope is spooled out.
Scratch that. I thought they were installing them inside the tower, not in a ring around its base.
The problem is that those turbines are a couple thousand feet up over top a giant inverted funnel.