Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jaguar, World's Most Powerful Supercomputer

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the minimum-requirements-for-crysis dept.

Supercomputing 154

Protoclown writes "The National Center for Computational Sciences (NCCS), located at Oak Ridge National Labs (ORNL) in Tennessee, has upgraded the Jaguar supercomputer to 1.64-petaflops for use by scientists and engineers working in areas such as climate modeling, renewable energy, materials science, fusion and combustion. The current upgrade is the result of an addition of 200 cabinets of the Cray XT5 to the existing 84 cabinets of the XT4 Jaguar system. Jaguar is now the world's most powerful supercomputer available for open scientific research."

cancel ×

154 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Silly Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766463)

I thought it was Leopard!

Re:Silly Me (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766783)

No. Jaguar. 1995 XK12, Six-Litre.

Re:Silly Me (2, Informative)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768003)

No. Jaguar. 1995 XK12, Six-Litre.

I'd rather doubt the 1995 XK12, as cool as it was, was any competitor to the Jaguar XJ220 [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Silly Me (4, Funny)

colmore (56499) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767017)

Hahah, eat it, 3DO.

Economics? (3, Interesting)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766471)

How about economic modeling?

Re:Economics? (0, Redundant)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766511)

From the minimum-requirements-for-crysis dept.

How about running Crysis...on VISTA!

Re:Economics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766539)

Very nice, very topical, and almost completely impossible.

Making an economic modeling system would be insane, and probably beyond even this machine's resources.
Not to mention, an economic model would be a self fulfilling prophecy, with people selling of just before predicted downturns and thus creating them, even if they wouldn't happen without the "forecast."

Re:Economics? (2, Insightful)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766581)

There already exists economic modeling. And it is no more impossible than climate modeling. Granted, human interaction becomes a factor when the general population is aware of the economic predictions, but I am talking theory, not necessarily practice.

Re:Economics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766695)

The problem with those models is their lose connection to reality. They assume unlimited resources or everyone behaving rational.

Re:Economics? (2, Informative)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766753)

Ultimately human behavior is near-continuous series of yes/no decisions. Our brains iterate pretty deeply, but at some level it's ones and zeros. Though we may need more petaflops than angels on the head of a pin before we can scratch that itch. At any rate, the application of such a model will probably always doom it to failure.

How much do we really know about climate? Probably a lot less than we think. Scientists are always so sure they are right. And then a few decades pass and they realize they weren't. And then they repeat that same behavior.

Re:Economics? (3, Interesting)

Draek (916851) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768125)

Scientists are always so sure they are right. And then a few decades pass and they realize they weren't. And then they repeat that same behavior.

Not really. Most scientists know they're always wrong, they just try to be less wrong each time. Hence the scientific method.

There's a brilliant article by Asimov about it, in fact, "The Relativity of Wrong" if you care about it.

Re:Economics? (2, Insightful)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766735)

Accurate economic modeling needs infinite resources, as the existence of the economic modeler needs to be taken into account, and it could be argued that the entire universe would have to be modelled 100% accurately - one atom being in a different place could cause drastically different outcomes years down the line, causing different economic conditions.

Re:Economics? (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768067)

The same could be said of any simulation of a system where both the system and the simulation itself aren't completely independant (and, one could say, always have been). But since that's an unrealistic expectation we approximate, and AFAIK in the case of economics we do it pretty well.

Re:Economics? (0)

mr_death (106532) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767457)

Of course, the climate models have failed to correctly predict global temperate going forward. In particular, James Hansen's most famous prediction has failed miserably -- see http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/25/hansen_forecast_1988.jpg [typepad.com] , which calls into question Hansen's and Saint Gore's doomsday predictions.

Curve fitting are easy; prediction is hard. Given the lack of prediction success of the climate models, true global economic models will probably have the same issues.

Re:Economics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25767855)

Hey, that looks legit. Well, I'm convinced.

Re:Economics? (2, Interesting)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767945)

Look at the caption on your graph. Hansen's Scenario A is a high emissions scenario which does not correspond to the emissions which actually occurred. If you want to legitimately test the skill of a climate model, you need to compare apples to apples. In this case, Hansen's Scenario B is the one that most closely corresponded to the real emissions trajectory. (Since Hansen is a climate scientist, not an economist, he gave a range of possible emissions scenarios and did not claim the world would follow any specific one of them.) Even Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit acknowledges this.

Your snide reference to "Saint Gore" indicates that your skepticism has more to do with your emotional biases than with any true scientific motivation. And citing a graph which makes a point of comparing a single month's temperature to another month's temperature makes me question your critical thinking skills. (Well, choosing to get your "science" from skeptic web sites instead of from the scientific literature is the main reason to question your criticial thinking skills.) But if you want to read some science, you could start here [sciencemag.org] .

Re:Economics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766583)

Obviously noone's been using supersomputers for economic modeling - how do you explain the mess the world is in?

Re:Economics? (2, Funny)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766671)

how do you explain the mess the world is in?

Pre-marital sex?

Re:Economics? (2, Informative)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766919)

Every time you have sex outside marriage, god kills an economist (and a kitten)

Re:Economics? (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767691)

I would suggest that marital sex results in offspring more frequently* than pre-marital sex, if you get my point.

*more offspring per "event", on average.

Not as powerful ... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766475)

... as the goatse [goatse.cz] .

Yeah, the supercomputing stuff is nice and all... (3, Insightful)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766487)

But I really got it to play Tempest 2000.

Prediction: I will pound pussy tonight (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766493)

ahhh, just thinking about my girlfriend's tight, creamy pussy gets my blod boiling south of the border. She loves the cock. She loves my cock, and I love giving it to her right. Ahh, can't wait to lick that creamy pussy.

Re:Prediction: I will pound pussy tonight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766665)

I hear that she prefer's it in the ass.

Re:Prediction: I will pound pussy tonight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766729)

He said girlfriend, not mother.

Re:Prediction: I will pound pussy tonight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766875)

po-tay-to po-tah-to?

How does that work? (1)

TheDarkener (198348) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766497)

So, like, how do so many people use the computer effectively? Do they have a sign-in sheet? I bet there's a long line. :p~

Re:How does that work? (4, Informative)

Entropius (188861) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766613)

There is a queueing system. If you want to run a job on a machine like this, you log into the control node (which is just a linux box) and submit your job to the queue, including how many CPU's you need for it and how much time you need on them.

A scheduling algorithm then determines when the various jobs waiting in the queue get to run, and sends mail to their owners when they start and stop.

On many machines there is a debug queue with low limits for number of CPU's and runtime, and thus fast turnover; this is used to run little jobs to ensure everything is working right before you submit the big job to the main queue.

Each project has an al

Re:How does that work? (1)

TheDarkener (198348) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766731)

Wow, I was actually joking, but ... cool. I actually thought it worked more like a mainframe/*nix terminal server.

Re:How does that work? (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766921)

Do you need special permission to request ALL of the processors for your job?

Re:How does that work? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25767247)

NCCS is a capability site, so no. You just need to be willing to wait for your job to bubble up to the top of the queue. In fact, as a capability site, the whole point is to develop codes that can run on the entire machine. Now, once your job runs, you will have to wait a while to get another opportunity, as the queues are set up to provide an 8 week moving average of "fairness".

yes but does it run vista/crysis (1)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766501)

probably not, its not designed for that sort of thing so its a stupid question to ask, nd probably uses linux anyway

well that got that one out the way

Re:yes but does it run vista/crysis (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766723)

It can't, because Crysis is not multithreaded. If you can figure out a way to parallelize it, then you certainly could run Crysis on it.

Re:yes but does it run vista/crysis (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767795)

Hell, you could *simulate* an x86_64 CPU on that thing, and it would not even hiccup on Crysis on Vista with every setting set to "Extreme".
I wonder if someone could replace the engine by a full global illumination raytracer first. :D

Re:yes but does it run vista/crysis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25768149)

why simulate ? look up the tech specs from TFA, the thing is actually rigged with thousands of AMD Opteron processors

Don't buy it (3, Funny)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766527)

Yeah, Jaguar might look cool with its advanced capabilities, but there's no games for it and the controller design is lame.

Re:Don't buy it (1)

Z80a (971949) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766587)

and the hardware itself its quite buggy,as you need to align the jumps with 64 bits words but at least there is tempest for it

Re:Don't buy it (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767087)

So, I'm standing in front of my new Jag, with my WOW CD in my trembling hands. Where do I plug in my Game Keyboard, and Mouse? There's nothing in the owners manual about where the plug is to connect to my Cable Box!? How much was this thing again?

And another thing, where is the Cup Holder?

Re:Don't buy it (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767717)

And another thing, where is the Cup Holder?

It was eliminated from this model. But you can buy an extra toilet seat!

Re:Don't buy it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25767937)

Were current and former employees who worked on the ATARI JAGUAR 64-bit gaming system involved in this supercomputer project, hence the name Jaguar?

Please no climate modelling! (0)

backslashdot (95548) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766549)

Why do climate modelling?

We know global warming happens, we know how to reduce it. WTF. There is already a wealth of evidence for global warming, whats lacking is political will .. which wasting resources on climate modelling won't bring about .. simple education will.

Bigger payoffs are drug discovery and fusion energy research.

Re:Please no climate modelling! (2, Insightful)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766623)

There is already a wealth of political will for global warming, whats lacking is evidence ..

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Please no climate modelling! (3, Insightful)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766663)

I would say more than lack of evidence is lack of causation rather than correlation. Scientists appear to agree that at least in the short term the earth is a little warmer. What they can't say with any certainty is why. Anthropogenic warming is the desired cause as that is the only one we can do a damn thing about.

Re:Please no climate modelling! (1)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766849)

And the only cause that is politically useful.

Re:Please no climate modelling! (1)

a_claudiu (814111) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767147)

Anthropogenic warming is the desired cause as that is the only one we can do a damn thing about.

People can do something even if the warming is not man made. If the cause is proven to be man made maybe the people will be persuaded to react faster.

Re:Please no climate modelling! (1)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767991)

Global warming is not based merely on correlation studies. It has a direct and well understood physical cause, which is the greenhouse effect. (What is less understood is the climate system feedbacks which modify the greenhouse effect.) And climate scientists can indeed say with a high degree of confidence that the recent warming is due mostly to human activities. This evidence comes from physical reasoning as well as observational measurements (such as the stratospheric cooling signature of the enhanced greenhouse effect), as well as a quantification of manmade and natural sources of warming and cooling.

Re:Please no climate modelling! (1)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768177)

To clarify myself, I do not have a particular stance on global warming itself. I do not know climatology. I do believe however that

a) Appeal to consensus are irrelevant, scientific truth comes from repeated and verified experiments, not consensus.

b) Whether it is man made or not is an ethical puppet to distract attention. What's done done.

c) Most of the politics and economics surrounding global warming are flawed. That much I can tell. Even the worst prediction of the IPCC are quite tame compared to other disasters likely to happen, and they are dwarfed by the difference that even 0.5% of growth and technological progress a year makes on the same timescale.

Most of the global warming debate is really an attack on industrialization and global trade under the guise of environmentalism.
(And no it doesn't mean there's no global warming, and no it doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about it, but so far the debate has been mostly a trojan horse for political ideology).

Re:Please no climate modelling! (1)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768241)

The worst IPCC scenario (A1FI) gives a worst case of 6.4 C (11.5 F) global warming in less than 100 years. I don't know if it's the worst thing that is likely to happen, but that's not that tame (especially when you consider that land warms faster than the global average, and northern latitudes even faster than that). As for the economics, Nordhaus's book A Question of Balance is a good place to start. Nordhaus isn't ideological. It's economically worth mitigating some CO2 emissions to insure against the more severe outcomes. Not cutting them to zero instantly, but reducing them. Even the so-called Copenhagen Consensus, which concluded that a marginal investment in other disasters is more cost effective than pure CO2 abatement for global warming, ended up recommending CO2 abatement (in combination with adaptation and tech R&D).

And frankly, I don't particularly care whether certain parties find global warming ideologically convenient. The problem still exists.

Re:Please no climate modelling! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766643)

Too bad you weren't around for the last ice age or you could have led the charge to warm up the earth.

Re:Please no climate modelling! (2, Insightful)

Darth (29071) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766793)

Who says the climate modeling they are doing is related to global warming?

Even if it is, however, if the modeling increases our knowledge of the subject, it is not a waste of resources for scientists to seek the answers they are looking for.

Re:Please no climate modelling! (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767269)

All good points but lets not forget that simulation != observation.

This point was made about astrological observations on older slashdot stories and it holds true for climate prediction too.

I have to admit I am sceptical about blindly believing in global warming. I used to in the past however I've become a little smarter since then I can not see any hard observations for it, especially when volcanoes pump out 26 times more CO2 per year then all of humanity on the planet (however I'm slightly sceptical of how they measure the pollution figures too).

Wait, what's this got to do with the story... : /

Re:Please no climate modelling! (1)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768009)

I have to admit I am sceptical about blindly believing in global warming. I used to in the past however I've become a little smarter since then I can not see any hard observations for it, especially when volcanoes pump out 26 times more CO2 per year then all of humanity on the planet

That's not even remotely true. Volcanic CO2 emissions are about 1% of human CO2 emissions (see here [usgs.gov] ). Where did you get the rather specific, and wrong, factor of 26?

Maybe you'd see the hard evidence if you spend a little more time reading about it, since you appear to have some peculiar misconceptions. I recommend Kerry Emanuel's essay "Phaeton's Reins", David Archer's undergrad textbook, and the IPCC AR4 report for technical details.

Re:Please no climate modelling! (1)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768025)

Who says the climate modeling they are doing is related to global warming?

Oak Ridge does [ornl.gov] : "Climate scientists are calculating the potential consequences of greenhouse gas emissions and the potential benefits of limiting these emissions."

Re:Please no climate modelling! (4, Funny)

leathered (780018) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766847)

Why do climate modelling?

Obviously climate modelling has to be carried to out to find out what impact running energy-hungry supercomputers has on the environment.

Re:Please no climate modelling! (2, Informative)

Bunny Guy (1345017) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766873)

Having done my graduate work in fluid dynamics, only half your statement is possibly correct. There is historical evidence for global climate change, both warming and cooling. If is our interest to maintain the current status quo, the climate as we know it, it is not at all clear what interventions we need to take, or what effect they might have. Without simulations, that correctly model the real world. We have no way of knowing what our interventions might do. If anyone is interested, I can elaborate. The short (and scary)answer is - resonance.

Re:Please no climate modelling! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766953)

"There is already a wealth of political will for global warming, whats lacking is evidence..there, fixed that for you"

Bullshit. Sorry, but you need to get your facts right before stuffing your head up your ass. There is hardly any political will to go ahead with research and development and (key word) implementation of novel technologies that could help us and the environment. Why? Money.

Re:Please no climate modelling! (1)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767977)

Why do climate modelling?

Well, purely scientific reasons for one. Climate science existed long before global warming was a concern.

Another reason is to inform adaptation. No matter what policy is realistically put in place, at least some more climate change is expected to occur. People are going to have to adapt to whatever change is not prevented. It's thus important to improve our understanding of what may happen. It also tells us how large and how fast a policy response is required, although as you note, we are not yet even attempting the minimum recommended policy.

Non-Obligatory Frisky Dingo Reference (1)

MaxwellEdison (1368785) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766559)

Go Team Jaguar!

Boosh!

Kudos to Atari (5, Funny)

rgo (986711) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766563)

I always knew you could pull it off!!

Re:Kudos to Atari (2, Funny)

ari wins (1016630) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766825)

Dude, Altered Beast on this thing is SICK!

Re:Kudos to Atari (0)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766999)

I always knew you could pull it off!!

That's nothing. I'll have the world's most powerful supercomputer in a month. This is what I do... See.. they took 200 cabinets and added that to the already present 84....

This is how I win. I add 400 cabinets!

AHAHAHHAHAa!!! I GOT THE MOST POWERFUL ONE NOW! MUAHAHAHAHAH 200 ain't shit on my 400! ...... I just hope noone else can imagine a number greater than 400 and beat me....

Well done Atari (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766565)

Some people doubted the Jaguar, but I kept the faith. It's 64 bit - do the math on that!

Oblig (-1, Redundant)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766569)

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!

good upgrade path (2, Insightful)

Jodka (520060) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766589)

The current upgrade is the result of an addition of 200 cabinets of the Cray XT5 to the existing 84 cabinets of the XT4 Jaguar system.

That sounds like Cray engineered this to aggregate components across product generations. For short product life cycles that seems like a great idea, not throwing out the old system when you get the new one but combining the two systems instead. Though obviously for long product life cycles it would be a losing proposition; The space and power requirements of inefficient older components would be greater than the space and power savings of upgrading to the latest model + the expense of the upgrade.

Re:good upgrade path (3, Insightful)

bmwm3nut (556681) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766713)

Then when you get new cabinets you just decommission the oldest ones. Keep rotating the old ones out once they fall below some flop/dollar threshold.

Not that hard... (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767813)

These systems are not so tightly integrated as you may imagine. True, many size a full-speed fabric just-right, each little bit costs a ton. However, commonly at scale, you only have full-speed fabric in large subsections anyway, and oversubscribe between the subsections. Jobs tend to be scheduled within subsections as they fit, though the subsection interconnects are no slouch.

This is particularly popular as the authortitative Top500 benchmark is not too badly impacted by such a network topology, and real life workloads tend to not be so large as not to fit in a subsection (just all the subsections would be independently at work).

It's kind of akin to saying you designed a couple of desktops well, because you could 'expand' them to host a lan party by hooking more to switches. Not quite so trivial, but the supercomputers aren't that especially exotic either.

translation???? (1)

pablo_max (626328) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766601)

Can someone please translate the performance into people/hand held calculator/time and space into number of libraries of congress? I am not sure what the numbers they're talking about mean.
Thanks.

Re:translation???? (2, Informative)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766655)

Assume every single person on earth can do a 16-digit operation on a calculator in one second.

It would take them roughly a quarter million years with no breaks of any kind to do what this machine can do in one second.

Re:translation???? (4, Funny)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767607)

Wait, shit, astronomical fail!

It's not nearly that bad... more like 3 days. I failed to realize that my 270000 figure was seconds not years.

I knew.. (1)

Tmack (593755) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766619)

Atari [wikipedia.org] would make a comeback!!

Tm

!scimanydomreht fo wal dnoceS (1)

Nux'd (1002189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766621)

Will environmentalists ever stop trying to reverse the second law of thermodynamics?

"Insufficient data for a meaningful answer."

Damn.

"Used for open science..." (0)

Entropius (188861) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766705)

There are much bigger computers around in Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore that are used to model thermonuclear weapons sitting around in storage to see if they'll still go pop when we push the Big Red Button.

The scientific community would like to use these machines for something useful, and in fact the scientists at Los Alamos have allowed some folks from my lattice QCD group to use a bit of spare time on it. Unfortunately the UNIX security features aren't enough; they weren't allowed to ftp our data out, and instead had to send the guy with the security clearance in with a pencil and paper to write down a page full of numbers. This is because of the ludicrous security procedures surrounding this Classified Machine. As you might imagine, this isn't a terribly efficient way to do things in a field where tens of gigabytes are sftp'd across the country without blinking.

If we are ever in a situation where we're genuinely concerned with whether or not a given one of our nukes will still go pop, we are Already Fucked (tm). That's like modelling exactly what happens if a 10-km-radius asteroid hits the earth: at that point, we don't really care.

This isn't to say that the nation's resources should be used for building giant computers for scientific research. The discussion about how to allocate our research funding is a difficult one. But if we're going to invest so much in computational power, it seems prudent to use it for something other than checking to see whether our e-peen is still hard.

It says something depressing about our country that the top of the supercomputer list is used predominantly for military purposes.

Re:"Used for open science..." (2, Informative)

momerath2003 (606823) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766773)

You, sir, are an idiot.

LANL, LLNL, and SNL are all weapons labs. ORNL is primarily a science lab.

I myself have worked at three of these labs and held an account on an earlier iteration of Jaguar as well as some of LANL's other supercomputing clusters, so I ought to know.

ORNL's Jaguar cluster, although parts of it are I think "controlled" rather than open so that it can run export-controlled code, is not at all classified. It's used for biology, astronomy, physics, CFD, etc.

Also, if you knew the first thing about classified security you would realize that disallowing FTP access on a *classified* (Red network) machine to the outside internet is a necessity. To my knowledge, they don't allow *any* interconnection between classified systems and unclassified.

Re:"Used for open science..." (1)

caerwyn (38056) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767677)

You, sir, can't read.

He was specifically talking about LANL and LLNL rather than ORNL.. that was the entire point.

Granted, yes, his description of disallowing classified non-classified connectivity as "ludicrous" is a little off-base, although writing things down by hand really is stupid- there are plenty of procedures in place for putting data on transportable media and then arranging to declassify that media once it has been verified so that it can be used elsewhere.

That doesn't change his fundamental points, though, that there are larger computing clusters that are locked up in classified nuclear simulation that could (and perhaps should) be used for more general science.

Re:"Used for open science..." (1)

momerath2003 (606823) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767761)

In that case, pardon my misunderstanding in thinking that his post was at all related to the posted article.

His title, "Used for open science...", was a quotation from the summary specifically about the ORNL computer. His rant about "much bigger computers around" was plausibly interpreted as the biggest one, the new ORNL cluster. I certainly must have been misled.

It might not look like much... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766733)

...but it can find Sarah Connor in under 6 parsecs.

Re:It might not look like much... (1)

Faylone (880739) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767051)

So, it can find her in under four times the distance to Alpha Centauri? Way to aim for precision.

Slashdotted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766739)

Meh. The most powerful supercomputer and the site still takes forever to open.

Upgrade! (1)

Chris L. Mason (3425) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766747)

They should really upgrade, Jaguar is ancient!

64-bit Jaguar (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766817)

remember that its not a true 64-bit multimedia system its two 32-bit systems connected together XD

imagine... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766879)

...a Beowulf cluster of these...

So cool! (0, Redundant)

darthwader (130012) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766889)

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!

Re:So cool! (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767101)

I am so confused by the mods...the post above this one (posted 1 minute before) says exactly the same thing but gets "-1 Redundant"?!! Is it just because it was an AC, or did the title of "So cool!" really change the joke?!?

Re:So cool! (1)

xonar (1069832) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767563)

Maybe they thought someone who could actually receive karma deserved it more?

Re:So cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25768089)

If I still had mod points I'd mod him redundant, fwiw.

Folding@Home Contribution? (2, Insightful)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766991)

It would be nice on these sorts of systems to have recurring, perhaps low priority, jobs issued by worthy outside distributed computing projects. Depending upon how busy the system is with other jobs it could make regular contributions to drug research and especially to AIDS research. To have complete and accurate pre-computed models of all steps in the protein folding process for all possible mutations of the AIDS virus, for example, would be a technological triumph and of potentially great benefit to humanity in the development of new drugs and possibly even an effective vaccine.

Re:Folding@Home Contribution? (1)

Adam Hazzlebank (970369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767359)

To have complete and accurate pre-computed models of all steps in the protein folding process for all possible mutations of the AIDS virus

1. Each trajectory would be several terabytes (possibly verging on petabypes).

2. The largest simulation I know of is this one: http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/STMV/ [uiuc.edu] they simulated for 50ns and it's 10 times smaller than HIV. Protein folding takes milliseconds, not nanoseconds... it's not really tractable right now. I don't know how much cpu time the simulation took but it would have been a lot.

3. Clusters like these are rarely idle, jobs are queued up to run when the cpus become available.

what, no 'Vista capable' jokes? (0)

catmistake (814204) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767119)

And I downloaded the summary and all the comments too! wtf?

Re:what, no 'Vista capable' jokes? (1)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767791)

Awww shit dude, your day is totally ruined! Don't worry, I think Crysis and Beowulf made it in. Phew! I thought /. was losing its edge!

Hmm... (1)

Troll14 (1395683) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767153)

"1.64-petaflops for use by scientists and engineers working in areas such as climate modeling, renewable energy, materials science, fusion and combustion." Oh comon, do you think that there going to use ALL of this storage for science? I bet there's a few hundred TB worth of pron on there...

Love the paint job! (2, Informative)

neowolf (173735) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767271)

Check out the gallery if you haven't.

I've always wanted to get some custom graphics like that on my server racks. Maybe a penguin, a butterfly, and a can of Raid. :)

Supercomputers definitely don't look as exciting as they did in the "old days".

Re:Love the paint job! (1)

cbreaker (561297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767341)

Yea man, that thing is fucking awesome. I love the graphics.

Who said super computing had to be boring?

That's the kind of work I wish I could be doing.. building and configuring those monsters.

That being said, look at the size of that room! If half of it is the computer, then that's one big open space left doing nothing.

I'm sure they'll use it for something eventually.

not that great (0)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767317)

It's been offline a lot [ornl.gov] this month...

Just one thing (1)

damaki (997243) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767395)

42

181,504 Opteron cores! (1)

2ms (232331) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767515)

I wonder how much they paid for all those Opterons. I wonder what kind of volume discount is typical for these kinds of supercomputers.

Climate modeling ves. fusion energy (1)

backslashdot (95548) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767725)

If we can get fusion energy working cheap, we won't need the climate modeling. Not only that we can build a hundred of these things cheaper with the technology advances.

Climate change is gradual .. the need for new drugs and fusion energy is more pressing.

Re:Climate modeling ves. fusion energy (2, Interesting)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768043)

Climate change is gradual, but the emissions we put into the atmosphere today will last for centuries. Even if we switched over to all fusion power tomorrow, we'd still see more climate change, and the longer we wait to replace fossil fuels, the more we will see. Realistically, it takes a long time to widely deploy a new energy technology. Fusion isn't even feasible in the lab, let alone ready for deployment, let alone widely deployed.

Also, even if fusion were widely deployed, that doesn't mean we'd necessarily have less fossil fuel emissions. Coal plants are cheap because they're already built, so we might just keep running them instead of shutting them down and having to build a new fusion plant, even a cheap one. They typically have operating lifetimes of over 50 years.

What's the score? (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767859)

I noticed this a short time ago, but have yet to see the 'Rmax' performance. They speak to Rpeak, which does beat out the current Rpeak by 23%, though the Rpeak by itself is even more uninformative than Rmax, which is already quite synthetic. Assuming the current #1 hasn't managed tuning or upgrades, this will have to beat 65% efficiency to technically win. 65% is likely an acheiveable goal, though the larger the run, the more difficult to extract a reasonable efficiency number, so it's not certain. I wouldn't expect them to be so loud about it unless they knew the score already though...

I will be interested to see the power consumption figures if offered. For that 25% increase in flops, they are requiring well over twice as many processor packages than RoadRunner (about 18,000 sockets vs 45,000 sockets here).

I do wonder if Cray will be migrating to Intel in the next year given the QPI situation. AMD hasn't kept up compute leadership, and now HT will be lagging performance wise QPI.

Time to act like a user (1)

rhenley (1194451) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768159)

Hmmm...the ORNL web site lists the phone number for the Help Line. I think someone should call them up and ask them to reboot the server because the Internet is running slow.

SETI (2, Funny)

madcat2c (1292296) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768181)

That is a lot of SETI@home power!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>