I see a few people making the expected "It's just four motherboards wired together with Gig E"-comments. While I won't object to that, I'd say this is not about a groundbreaking evolution in hardware, more a case of demonstrating what's possible today with COTS parts. Adding to that the compact packaging, and the ability to run off of a single power cord, it's a nice setup IMHO.
While it does not have the interconnect of "true HPC" hardware (a bit of a fleeting distinction, but bear with me) it'll surely be suitable for a lot of the simpler, yet still compute-intensive tasks out there ("simple" here meaning not needing a lot of intra-node communication).
On the flip side, it might fuel the "hell, I'll just build my own cluster"-mentality going around these days. I work in the HPC group at a university, running linux clusters, IBM "big iron" and a couple of small, old SGI installation, and we certainly see a bit of that going around. Problem is, sure, the hardware is cheap and affordable, but getting it to run in a stable and sensible manner without spending large amounts of time just keeping the thing together is a challenge, mainly due to the immature state of clustering software. As many researchers are not exactly keen on spending time solving problems outside their specific field, they're usually better off letting somebody else administer things, so they can just log on and run their stuff.
But for individuals and small groups of people who are computer savvy enough to handle it, things like these are definately a "good thing" (TM).
I'd consider my self a programming cook - allthough my cooking is only a hobby.
My approach is a bit different than yours, seemingly - I'd say get some good recipes, and obey them.
Why? Obeying recipes is generally an efficient way of avoiding poor results. Sure, lots of stuff is easy to make, but say you want to make Creme Brulee, or thick 'n chewy chocolate chip cookies or a nice italian risotto? Unless you're careful, the creme brulee will turn grainy, your cookies won't be chewy and the risotto will be soggy... It's not that any of these things are especially hard to make, but you DO need to follow the recipes closely, unless you want to rely on blind luck.
Maybe these things are what you label "far too complex" - but really, they're not. They just require you to read the recipe before you start, and adhere to it. After you made them a few times, THEN you can start changing things around if you feel like it.
Dont get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with cooking things up ad hoc style, seasoning as you go, but unless you've cooked something similar to whatever you're trying to make many times before, it will be hard to get any consistent results. Once you do know the recipe by heart, THEN you can experiment.
Actually, it's not a made-up word. It's used in the Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD - the military term for "Bomb Squad") business about - well - unexploded bombs, missiles etc - basically things that are likely to go "boom" at any moment, but hasn't yet. These things are called UXO's for short (UneXploded Objects). Now, I encountered these terms in the Norwegian Air-Force, but - what with the terms being english and all - I'm guessing they're used in the States as well.
In light of that, calling the remaining battery cells "unexploded" seems wholly appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
I see a few people making the expected "It's just four motherboards wired together with Gig E"-comments. While I won't object to that, I'd say this is not about a groundbreaking evolution in hardware, more a case of demonstrating what's possible today with COTS parts. Adding to that the compact packaging, and the ability to run off of a single power cord, it's a nice setup IMHO.
While it does not have the interconnect of "true HPC" hardware (a bit of a fleeting distinction, but bear with me) it'll surely be suitable for a lot of the simpler, yet still compute-intensive tasks out there ("simple" here meaning not needing a lot of intra-node communication).
On the flip side, it might fuel the "hell, I'll just build my own cluster"-mentality going around these days. I work in the HPC group at a university, running linux clusters, IBM "big iron" and a couple of small, old SGI installation, and we certainly see a bit of that going around. Problem is, sure, the hardware is cheap and affordable, but getting it to run in a stable and sensible manner without spending large amounts of time just keeping the thing together is a challenge, mainly due to the immature state of clustering software. As many researchers are not exactly keen on spending time solving problems outside their specific field, they're usually better off letting somebody else administer things, so they can just log on and run their stuff.
But for individuals and small groups of people who are computer savvy enough to handle it, things like these are definately a "good thing" (TM).
I'd consider my self a programming cook - allthough my cooking is only a hobby.
:)
My approach is a bit different than yours, seemingly - I'd say get some good recipes, and obey them.
Why? Obeying recipes is generally an efficient way of avoiding poor results. Sure, lots of stuff is easy to make, but say you want to make Creme Brulee, or thick 'n chewy chocolate chip cookies or a nice italian risotto? Unless you're careful, the creme brulee will turn grainy, your cookies won't be chewy and the risotto will be soggy... It's not that any of these things are especially hard to make, but you DO need to follow the recipes closely, unless you want to rely on blind luck.
Maybe these things are what you label "far too complex" - but really, they're not. They just require you to read the recipe before you start, and adhere to it. After you made them a few times, THEN you can start changing things around if you feel like it.
Dont get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with cooking things up ad hoc style, seasoning as you go, but unless you've cooked something similar to whatever you're trying to make many times before, it will be hard to get any consistent results. Once you do know the recipe by heart, THEN you can experiment.
That's my way of doing things, anyways
Actually, it's not a made-up word. It's used in the Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD - the military term for "Bomb Squad") business about - well - unexploded bombs, missiles etc - basically things that are likely to go "boom" at any moment, but hasn't yet. These things are called UXO's for short (UneXploded Objects). Now, I encountered these terms in the Norwegian Air-Force, but - what with the terms being english and all - I'm guessing they're used in the States as well.
In light of that, calling the remaining battery cells "unexploded" seems wholly appropriate.