×

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!

New Top 500 Supercomputer List

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the every-one-a-winner dept.

Supercomputing 138

geaux and other readers let us know that the new Top 500 Supercomputer list is out. The top two both break the Petaflops barrier: LANL's IBM "RoadRunner" and ORNL's Cray XT5 "Jaguar." (Contrary to our discussion a few days back, IBM's last-minute upgrade of RoadRunner salvaged the top spot for Big Blue. Kind of like bidding on eBay.) The top six all run in excess of 400 Teraflops. HP has more systems in the top 500 than IBM, reversing the order of the previous list. Both Intel and AMD issued press releases crowing over their wins, and both are correct — AMD highlights its presence in 7 of the top 10, while Intel boasts that 379 of the top 500 use their chips.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

138 comments

you're joking, right? (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25794979)

has the Top 500 Supercomputer List been slashdotted already?

Re:you're joking, right? (4, Insightful)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795095)

SETI@home [berkeley.edu] gets 495 teraFLOPS, according to this site: http://boincstats.com/stats/project_graph.php?pr=sah [boincstats.com]

Sure, it's not one supercomputer, but it still does more calculations for one purpose than any other single supercomputer can.

Re:you're joking, right? (1)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795145)

SETI@home gets 495 teraFLOPS, according to this site: http://boincstats.com/stats/project_graph.php?pr=sah [boincstats.com]
Sure, it's not one supercomputer, but it still does more calculations for one purpose than any other single supercomputer can.

While I can't see the actual article, if the summary is correct than most of the top 6 computers run faster than that. While it's an impressive feat for SETI, there are faster computers in a single unit now.

Re:you're joking, right? (0)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795161)

While I can't see the actual article, if the summary is correct than most of the top 6 computers run faster than that. While it's an impressive feat for SETI, there are faster computers in a single unit now.

From the article: The top six all run in excess of 400 Teraflops.

Hmm, no, the summary does not say that at all. Maybe you misread the '500'? ;)

Re:you're joking, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25795247)

Top two break Petaflops, so assuming summary is correct they beat out SETI@home.

Re:you're joking, right? (4, Insightful)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795251)

Hmm, no, the summary does not say that at all. Maybe you misread the '500'? ;)

Come again? FTS:

The top two both break the Petaflops barrier

AKA 1000 TeraFlops.

The top six all run in excess of 400 Teraflops.

(I don't know how many are over the 500Tflop barrier but those are the computers between the 1PetaFlop and 400Tflop mark. ;-)

Re:you're joking, right? (4, Informative)

pablomme (1270790) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795297)

Hmm, no, the summary does not say that at all. Maybe you misread the '500'? ;)

if the summary is correct than most of the top 6 computers run faster than that

Maybe you misread the 'most'? 8)

Whatever the exact number, the summary clearly says that there are at least 2 supercomputers achieving more than 1 Petaflop, which is over twice Seti's performance. So your statement about there being no faster supercomputer than Seti is still incorrect.

Re:you're joking, right? (2, Funny)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795353)

So your statement about there being no faster supercomputer than Seti is still incorrect.

Nah, it's just restin'. ;)

Re:you're joking, right? (1)

grub (11606) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795287)


Sure, it's not one supercomputer, but it still does more calculations for one purpose than any other single supercomputer can.

Maybe, but the CPU latency totally sucks bag compared to anything on the Top 500 :)

Re:you're joking, right? (0)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795421)

that's an interesting question. since most modern supercomputers are just extremely larger clusters with very high I/O bandwidths running on a high-speed network. such systems allow for optimal large-scale parallel processing, which is a defining characteristic of supercomputers.

supercomputing clusters are still running separate instances of the OS on each node in the cluster. so aside from the geographic proximity of the cluster nodes and each node dedicating all of its processing power to the cluster, there's really not much of a difference between the BOINC platform and a "true" supercomputer.

Re:you're joking, right? (1)

toxygen01 (901511) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795503)

it's true and it's not true. if you have a chunk (unit, package, whatever you call it) to process, you wouldn't have it processed as fast as let's say 200 teraflops cluster. there are two main reasons for this:

1) all users are updating their work orders in some intervals, not immediately. (for sure this can be changed in implementation, but according to character of distributed computing, you don't want to do it)

2) some units needs to be processed whole at once, it means you cannot break them to pieces and distribute those. there are many reasons - character of processing algorithms -> shared memory, exchanging information between individual iterations (threads or some other), heavy I/O usage (mainly storage), etc... so it's purely theoretical number. it's like saying that in one year it can do as much work as one 495 teraflops cluster, however, it won't be able to cope with all kinds of tasks you would probably need and could have them done on cluster.

not even comparing those two (seti/boinc and clusters) in power consumption could give you theoretically could give you any estimate about horsepower you have, because clusters are densely packed, optimized for 24/7, have fast processors, whilst with projects like seti/boing/folding@home you have very heterogenous environment...

yeah, and you we are still assuming that internet has no bandwith limit. some "chunks" can be gigabytes big...

Re:you're joking, right? (4, Informative)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795651)

On the other hand, the Folding @ Home project, which is actually doing something useful with all those cycles, has broken the PetaFLOP [1up.com] mark, and did so over a year ago.

Re:you're joking, right? (2, Insightful)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25796007)

that's a pretty shortsighted statement. (and it also happens to be why the SETI project has had such a hard time receiving funding in the past.)

just because it hasn't produced any practical results yet doesn't mean it's not useful. unless you're assuming that we are alone in the universe, which is a pretty big assumption, the SETI project is an incredibly important scientific endeavor. and through SETI@Home, the resource costs of the project has been largely subsidized by volunteers who're contributing their unused CPU cycles.

if everyone shared your attitude, no one would bother searching for a cure for AIDS, and manned flight would have been given up on long before it was even attempted. but i suppose SETI is just one of those things that will continue to draw detractors until we actually do find intelligent extraterrestrial life. but that's never going to happen if don't even both to look.

Re:you're joking, right? (1)

JorDan Clock (664877) | more than 5 years ago | (#25796245)

When SETI gets a signal from extraterrestrial life, it'll be decades (at least) before we even get a signal back.

In that time, Folding@Home could find useful data about hundreds of proteins.

Seti@Home has a hard time receiving funding for a good reason. We know for a fact that the data gained from Folding@Home will be of use. We don't know if Seti@Home will ever find a signal, let alone one we could reply to or do anything useful with.

Re:you're joking, right? (3, Interesting)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25796507)

what does it matter if we can't communicate back when/if we find a signal? the impact such knowledge would have on human society, on human history, would be tremendous just by the philosophical implications alone.

should we stop all fundamental science research just because they don't have immediate practical or technological applications? there's something to be said for the search of knowledge for its own sake. and not knowing whether or not you will ever find an answer to a particular scientific question, or if you will succeed in a particular objective, is hardly a good reason for not even trying.

do you think the inventor of the first microscope knew beforehand that he was paving the way for the scientific field of microbiology? do you think the first bacteriologists knew that their pioneering work would eventually lead to the discovery of antibiotics and revolutionize modern medicine?

it's impossible to know exactly what consequences will follow the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that, whatever happens, it will have a profound impact on how humanity perceives itself and their relationship with the cosmos. whether we're alone in the universe is one of the fundamental questions of science, philosophy, and theology. just because answering it will not make computers run faster or cure cancer doesn't mean it's not worth asking.

Re:you're joking, right? (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 5 years ago | (#25796837)

Of course, if the alien signal explains how to break the speed of light barrier, the secret to eternal life, or even just a cure for cancer, we'd be bummed if we missed it.

Re:you're joking, right? (1)

caluml (551744) | more than 5 years ago | (#25800053)

Of course, if the alien signal explains how to break the speed of light barrier, the secret to eternal life, or even just a cure for cancer, we'd be bummed if we missed it.

Yep: "Sorry boss, was just tuning around the bands, trying to hear the latest stockmarket news. Guess I missed it. My bad. And unemployed."

Re:you're joking, right? (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 5 years ago | (#25796319)

Folding at home IS part of searching for a cure for AIDS. You've just essentially said that if everybody shared the attitude of Pitabred, they would all be running software that helps find a cure for AIDS, because they had this bad attitude that didn't see the point in bothering to help find a cure for AIDS. Not only did you insult him for no good reason, but that doesn't even make any sense, and will probably trigger one of those damned posts about the Chewbaka defense.
        Oh, and way to make SETI@Home look like a responsible, pro-science use of otherwise wasted processing power, instead of some weird cult that attracts rabid fanbois. You are not doing the cause you support any favors.

Re:you're joking, right? (2, Insightful)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25797107)

If you aren't devoting all of your resources towards combating the heat death of the universe [wikipedia.org], then pray tell, what sort of short-sighted project are you wasting your time and money on?

Why do you have internet access, or a computer at all? You should be out volunteering your time for better causes, rather than posting to an internet forum that nobody will read in three days' time.

Or, maybe, we can balance doing several of these things at once. SETI@home, Folding@home, Einstein@home, and whatever tickles your fancy. Unless God exists and moral relativism is a crock, then you really shouldn't look down on other such projects. There's always something bigger, better, and more pressing that you could be devoting your time, money, and effort towards.

Re:you're joking, right? (0, Offtopic)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25797159)

Also, I have one final thing [wikipedia.org] I want you to consider. This is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a guy defending a distributed computing project, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

Re:you're joking, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25796883)

It becomes harder to find intelligent extraterrestrial life out there when there's very few intelligent terrestrial life down here..

Re:you're joking, right? (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25798705)

I don't think he's saying it's bad because they haven't found aliens yet. I think he's saying saving lives might be a bigger deal than discovering alien lives. I would agree that saving lives is a bigger deal, but I would disagree with how he implies that discovering alien life is not useful at all. Just maybe not as useful as saving our own lives.

Re:you're joking, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25797319)

So what if you consider folding @ home to be more useful than SETI? I do what I want to with my cycles. They're MINE, and I can "waste" them on SETI if I want to. All those machines working on SETI @ home are doing something useful too, even if you don't think it is as useful as folding @ home.

Re:you're joking, right? (2, Informative)

bmgoau (801508) | more than 5 years ago | (#25798441)

Folding@home is sustaining over 4.2 Petaflops and rising quickly.
You can see statistics here: http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=osstats [stanford.edu]
And a nice graph charting the rise here: http://img388.imageshack.us/my.php?image=foldinghome20kx2.png [imageshack.us]

I also enjoy reading the Wiki article on the NSA's headquaters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency#Facilities [wikipedia.org]

It goes on to talk about their own private chip fab, and how they are using an inordinate amount of power. I can only assume they are running some major hardware...

Re:you're joking, right? (1)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795113)

has the Top 500 Supercomputer List been slashdotted already?

Indeed... sure they hosted the list on a Cray supercomputer, but due to budget cuts they hooked it up to a 56k modem.

Re:you're joking, right? (1)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795121)

Yeah, they should've just included the amount of Linux systems in the summary instead of forcing everyone to RTFA.

Re:you're joking, right? (1)

pablomme (1270790) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795327)

Yeah, they should've just included the amount of Linux systems in the summary instead of forcing everyone to RTFA.

Why - is it not 500? Are there still High-Performance Windows experiments going on?

Re:you're joking, right? (1)

gerardolm (1137099) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795427)

!windows != linux

Re:you're joking, right? (1)

pablomme (1270790) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795501)

!windows != linux

Very true.

Linux is on the majority of the top 500 computers, though. All new-ish HPC facilities I have access to run Linux. Not that that's a large sample..

Wily Coyote comments (5, Funny)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 5 years ago | (#25794991)

Wily Coyote certified Genius was said Monday to be disappointed that the Road Runner had yet again managed to elude him but denied that the Road Runner had demonstrated more brains than him.

"Although it may appear that the Road Runner is smarter due to the fact that I have fallen off cliffs, blown myself up and run into brick walls in fact I am significantly more intelligent and am an ACME top engineer"

IBM's Media Minder for Road Runner passed on a single comment

"MIP MIP"

Re:Wily Coyote comments (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25795519)

No! MIPS MIPS!

Re:Wily Coyote comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25795705)

You apparently have never seen a single Road Runner cartoon in your entire life. I'd feel sorry for you if you weren't so pathetic.

Re:Wily Coyote comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25796401)

.... WHOOOOSH!

Incomplete list. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25794999)

Where's Skynet?

Obligatory: Vista (1, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795153)

Only the top 23 run Vista well.

Imagine (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25795225)

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of ... ah fuck it.

Re:Imagine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25797153)

That's correct

Is this on the list? (1)

slummy (887268) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795275)

NVIDIA Tesla [nvidia.com] -- if not it should be.

Re:Is this on the list? (4, Informative)

Surt (22457) | more than 5 years ago | (#25796969)

No, because it takes thousands of those to match what the top computers can do.

Look at the specifications for the high end one:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla_s1070.html [nvidia.com]
345 GFlops

The bottom of the top500 list is now 12.64 Tflop/s. So to make it to the bottom of the top500, you need 36 top of the line teslas (and that assumes you lose nothing to network issues, which isn't true). So call it at least 40 teslas to get to the bottom of the list.

To get to the top of the list, you'd need about 3500 teslas.

Re:Is this on the list? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25798937)

Well pwnt sir.

top 10 more important than 500 (4, Insightful)

Gates82 (706573) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795349)

HP has more systems in the top 500 than IBM

Something tells me it is more impressive to have majority stake in the top 10 super computers than in the remaining 490.

--
So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's Sister?

Re:top 10 more important than 500 (2, Interesting)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795657)

more impressive, yes. more profitable? no.

but i'm glad to see AMD dominating the top 10 spots. i've always had a, perhaps irrational, affinity for AMD as the consummate underdog. plus, they always seemed to have a lower cost-to-performance ratio than Intel chips.

Re:top 10 more important than 500 (1)

fatphil (181876) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795729)

I'd wager HP makes more money from its presence in the 10-500 zone than IBM does. However, impressive and money are not necessarily correlated.

I'm not so sure there's much that's impressive here, as the benchmark used is a pitifully out-of-date one. Most of the big boxes are simple evolutions. There have been very few revolutions for several years. (Earth simulator, perhaps, and the very low-power POWER clusters.)

Re:top 10 more important than 500 (1)

Gates82 (706573) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795845)

Myself, I feel profit margin is more important then profit total. I would rather own Rolls Royce the GMC. (I suppose GMC is probably a poor example now since they do not post a profit).

--
So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's Sister?

Re:top 10 more important than 500 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25797551)

GMC is actually one of GM's profitable divisions. Sales are way way down, but trucks and SUVs are still high-margin.

Having (pieces of) the bloated corpse of GMAC tied around their neck is what's going to kill them; no amount of tiny-margin compact Chevrolet Aveo's can offset that.

Impressive.. (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25796029)

While the number itself is highly synthetic, it isn't necessarily out of date any more than any other single benchmark. HPCC attempts to score more stuff through a more varied test suite, but any one score of the suite is equally capable of being called irrelevant or uninteresting.

That said, there are a number of interesting items in the list. Cray's #2 showcased AMD's current generation's IO capabilities to the extent they've never been showcased before (right before they lose that exclusive benefit with Intel's Nehalem). IBM's non-x86 configurations show fantastic performance and even more drastic performance/watt (though I looked at the IBM website and they certainly price those QS22s up there, for a platform that is tricky to get the benefit out of).

But outside of exotic HT based interconnects and non-x86 servers, it is accurate to say mostly they are play-it-safe configurations that tie commodity equipment together with varying degrees of commodity networking equipment. It's a safe thing to do that people know how to do, and they can do it without making a unique custom solution the big companies wouldn't be able to productize on a small scale. I admit it is a shame, as I'd love to see more things along the lines of the Cray configuration, but none of the likely candidates seem to be willing to make that sort of investment.

Impressive to what end? (2, Interesting)

Junta (36770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25796185)

Technically impressive, absolute given, as the current top few offer unique technologies (Cray's Interconnect, IBM's processors).

From a profitability standpoint, undoubtedly the more successful a vendor is closer to the top of the list, the more they undoubtedly had to give up margin-wise for the bragging rights.

From a marketability standpoint, things get a tad awkward I think for the vendors at the top. IBM has Cell and BlueGene showcased, which we all understand can be used to great ends at the expense of a more complicated programming model (though HPC is already so parallel, they shouldn't be too bothered by this aspect of Cell), but in terms of more day-to-day operations, the sole bragging point relevant to the common market they get is that they know how to deliver and help architect 9,000 systems to work efficiently together (which is not a small feat, but the hardware itself has too high a barrier to get into the common market). For Cray, I honestly am surprised they have stuck around with only this niche market and still have held on. Their IO architecture is interesting, but of lower value at more common scales. These systems are certainly not cheap, but they are up against stiff competition willing to slice prices to grandstand about success.

The other configurations are made out of servers and processors and networking equipment that can more readily be used by a wider audience. So as cool as the exotic tech is, I think the commodity aspects are more compelling to the profitable customers for these vendors. Given the type of HP's share, HP may be quite ecstatic with the current list.

Re:Impressive to what end? (1)

Sangui5 (12317) | more than 5 years ago | (#25798741)

It's far worse than just shaving away at the profit margin. Bragging rights for being the processor (Intel vs AMD vs IBM), the interconnect (Myrinet vs InfiniBand vs Altix), or the assembler (IBM vs HP vs Dell vs etc etc etc) are highly coveted. In general, the top end supercomputers are sold at such heavy discounts that the profit margin may well be a loss margin instead. This is especially true if the machine is bought by an academic institution; universities *never* pay retail for this sort of thing.

I'd be interested to see what the market share split is if you exclude machines which appeared in the top 10 (not just this top 10, but previous top 10s as well). Since neither HP nor Dell seem to have a lot of visibility in the top 10, I'd presume that they're in it for the money, not for the fame. And I'm puzzled as to how Cray and SGI manage to hang on (although, the Altix interconnect is impressive; NUUUUUUUMA!).

Re:top 10 more important than 500 (1)

lakeland (218447) | more than 5 years ago | (#25797149)

I disagree; places in the top ten are too tempting to buy for bragging rights. After all if I was in the market for a small supercomputer I would be swayed by the argument - we built the world's #1! Having more of the top 500 tells me that independent people are more likely to choose HP than they are to choose IBM.

Imagine... [obligatory] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25795377)

Imagine a beowulf cluster of these...

Re:Imagine... [obligatory] (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25795549)

What would you do with beowulf cluster of top 500 lists, anyway?

Re:Imagine... [obligatory] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25796207)

Imagine a beowulf cluster of these...

What would you do with beowulf cluster of top 500 lists, anyway?

I'd host a supercomputer on them.

Re:Imagine... [obligatory] (1)

porl (932021) | more than 5 years ago | (#25796431)

actually, i think it would be great if they cooperated and somehow did a one-off cluster of at least a few of them, just to see how fast they could go. maybe run seti type things on half of the top 10 and see how much it processes in a certain period of time. could be good publicity for all who cooperate, with essentially a 'combined world record' for the fastest cluster on the planet :)

way to go guys - you just slashdotted the top 500 (1)

unix_geek_512 (810627) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795463)

Way to go guys - you just slashdotted top500.org :'(

Re:way to go guys - you just slashdotted the top 5 (1)

zoefff (61970) | more than 5 years ago | (#25799221)

Way to go guys - you and I just slashdotted top500.org :'(

Fixed that for you. ;-)

AES (1)

Eighty7 (1130057) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795481)

For the record, how long would one of them take to crack 256-bit AES?

Re:AES (5, Informative)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795805)

A device that could check a billion billion (1018) AES keys per second would require about 3*10^51 years to exhaust the 256-bit key space.(Wikipedia) [wikipedia.org]

A round can now be done with 16 table lookups and 12 32-bit exclusive-or operations, followed by four 32-bit exclusive-or operations in the AddRoundKey step.

(Wikipedia) [wikipedia.org]

Assuming 14 rounds for your 256 bit encryption thats 42 operations per round. At a trillion operations/second you get 1*10^12/42(love that number)=23,809,523,809, call it 24 billion rounds per second. Divide by a billion billion to try to match Wikipedia's number: 1/24,000,000,000= 41*10^-10. We can add those nine zeros straight over to get 41/3*10^61 years.


Did I do that right?

However.. (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25796281)

Not to diminish the scale any, but...

The average time to crack it wouldn't require exhausting key space, the chances are very low that you would have to.

Also, the type of operations make a huge difference. Top500 is a specific set of 64-bit precision operations being measured. These systems may be much faster at the AES calculation.

That said, no matter how you fiddle the math, it comes out to a uselessly long time even assuming they had *one* protected piece of data they needed to function (given my laptop has about a dozen AES encrypted streams for utterly boring linux shells, the signal-to-noise of important encrypted data v. uninmportant is pretty against cracking too.

Re:AES (3, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25797911)

We can add those nine zeros straight over to get 41/3*10^61 years. Did I do that right?

Close enough. The bigger problem (yes, really) is that you'll be long out of energy even if you built a Dyson sphere around the sun and captured 100% of its energy at 100% efficiency for the rest of its lifetime, since each operation requires at least kT/2 = 2*10^-23J under ideal conditions. Even at E=mc^2 you'll only get 8.6*10^69 = 2^233 operations out of the Sun. So even if you could build an ungodly massively parallel computer that could break AES256 in a reasonable time, you wouldn't have the power to operate it.

I await with trepidation (2)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795541)

I await with trepidation
For a Cray upon my wrist
Because life's a simulation
So I'll give the knobs a twist.

Now reality has schism'd
And I wonder if I'm missed
Because I've gone into recursion
And my manager is pissed.

Burma Shave

site slashdotted (1)

toxygen01 (901511) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795591)

bit a shame that site like top500.org which symbolizes dreamed horsepower and advertise 24/7 HA systems cannot withstand sudden increase in page hits. Those, who are preaching water, but drinking wine...

Attempt to sensationalize? (2, Interesting)

Junta (36770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25795783)

I don't think IBM/Los Alamos suddenly plopped down something in response to cray at the last minute (frankly, I don't think you could move that fast).

Any hardware upgrades were almost certainly in plan, and if there were none, they've had 6 months of tuning to extract better numbers oout of what they had.

I wouldn't be surprised if in 6 months, the Cray without any additional hardware managed a better number than RoadRunner without additional hardware. However, such a victory is diminished somewhat by the energy the Cray undoubtedly consumes to acheive what performance they do get.

Here we go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25796625)

Just imagine a beow-- fuck it.

Looks like Cray jumped the gun... (2, Interesting)

NimbleSquirrel (587564) | more than 5 years ago | (#25796867)

As others have pointed out, IBM didn't just boost the RoadRunner in response to Cray's claim of being the fastest: they have been quietly adding to it all along.

To me, the Cray Jaguar is actually two machines: an XT4 cluster (which was around 400 Teraflop/s back in June) and the XT5 cluster. Cray completely redesigned the switching architecture, the memory management, and the cooling to create the XT5. The XT5 really is a completely different machine. Cray seem determined to take #1 spot, but combining the XT4 and XT5 clusters for a better overall measurement has the disadvantage of making the XT5 look less efficient.

IBM has retained the crown with a system that has fewer processors and uses half the energy. By comparison, the Jaguar is a lumbering beast that uses far more power and requires far more real estate. However, if you look at the performance of the XT5 alone, those figures get more competetive.

Re:Looks like Cray jumped the gun... (1)

DegreeOfFreedom (768528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25796979)

Cray ran HPL only on the XT5 for Top500. Unlike the earlier press release about the 1.64 petaflop machine, which is a combination of XT4 and XT5 cabinets, the peak listed at Top500 is 1.38 petaflops. This is accounted for solely by the 200 cabinets of XT5.

Re:Looks like Cray jumped the gun... (1)

joib (70841) | more than 5 years ago | (#25798825)

They're not that different. The network is compatible, the physical design is compatible, e.g. you can slot in XT4 nodes into a XT5 enclosure (which is what Cray recommends if you have jobs with high bandwidth requirements).

From an end-user perspective the only difference is that XT5 nodes have twice the number of cores (2 sockets per node instead of 1).

cell phone, mobile phone (-1, Troll)

papayaone (1409535) | more than 5 years ago | (#25797367)

Papayaone.com is a online wholesale electronics web. Maybe you are finding China products all the time. Maybe you are finding the cheap China Wholesale Electronics [papayaone.com].But you can't find the satisfaction goods most time. You may feel the price is high or the quality is not so good .and the service is not so fast. Now I give you a good choice, at this website you can buy cheap electronics you want. It supply Alcohol Breath Testers [papayaone.com] , Korea Fahion Clothing [papayaone.com] , Carmeras Camcorders [papayaone.com], and Car accessories [papayaone.com].the cell phone accessories [papayaone.com],the cheap China cell phone [papayaone.com], cell phone watches [papayaone.com] and Tri-brand cell phone [papayaone.com].The web also give a fashion Digital Quran [papayaone.com],TV cell phone [papayaone.com] iPhone accessories [papayaone.com], http://www.papayaone.com/flashlights-c-57.html [http]">Flashlights, MP3/4 Audio [papayaone.com].Wish you can choice a satisfaction items from it.

linux stats (4, Informative)

iplayfast (166447) | more than 5 years ago | (#25797535)

Here's the droids you've been looking for:
http://www.top500.org/charts/list/32/os [top500.org]

Linux has dropped to only 77.8%, although specific other linux versions make up another 5% (approx)

And windows has had a huge increase to .2%

Good going! :)

Re:linux stats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25798345)

According to those graphs, CNL, CentOS, Suse and Redhat are not Linux. So, that makes me wonder what is actually defined as Linux according to them.

Re:linux stats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25798723)

CNL (Computing Node Linux), SLES (SUSE Linux ES) are Linux as well. The only ones that aren't Linux are AIX, Windows (duh!) and Others, which add up to 11.2% in 2008 from the charts, otherwise confirmed from here [top500.org]

Re:linux stats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25799323)

LIES! Windows DOMINATES 1%! Much like Linux's desktop market share.

Windows Compute Cluster Server 2003 1 0.20 %
Windows HPC 2008 4 0.80 %

Re:linux stats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25799423)

http://www.top500.org/stats/list/32/osfam

1 out of top 10 runs Windows! (2, Informative)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 5 years ago | (#25797565)

The most amazing thing on the Top500 site is that number 10 runs Windows! W00T! Go, Microsoft, Go!

Re:1 out of top 10 runs Windows! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25798115)

yeah, but it's not worth all that just for aero...

Jaguar fastest for "open scientific research" (1)

WhitePanther5000 (766529) | more than 5 years ago | (#25797571)

Contrary to our discussion a few days back, IBM's last-minute upgrade of RoadRunner salvaged the top spot for Big Blue.

While the IBM machine is still technically the world's fastest, the referenced article [slashdot.org] claims that Jaguar is the world's fastest supercomputer for OPEN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, which is true [ornl.gov]. The Roadrunner system, on the other hand, is mainly used in classified research.

Yuo FaiL It (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25798293)

The m0bou blew

Stupid question (1)

Gordo_1 (256312) | more than 5 years ago | (#25798787)

Other than for historical comparisons, what's the point of tracking the top "500" when nearly half the list turns over between June and November?

The 500th computer on the 11/2008 list hits an Rmax of 12.6 TFlops. That computer would have been #270 in June, so all computers below 270 in June were essentially wiped off the list in 6 months (not accounting for the ones that upgraded of course).

SuperComputer OS share : Windows 1% (1)

Tuqui (96668) | more than 5 years ago | (#25799129)

From the list http://www.top500.org/stats/list/32/osfam [top500.org]
  the Linux share is 87%, Windows is 1% (Less than the Desktop share of Ubuntu).

Re:SuperComputer OS share : Windows 1% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25799379)

I don't even understand why it's that high. Windows HPC is unproven, has much less vendor support, worse hardware support, worse software support and costs more than the comparable Linux installation and has a higher overhead per. node. Linux is the standard for HPC clusters. I'd laugh in your face if you suggested running Windows HPC on a cluster.

What happened to Apple (1)

klubar (591384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25800521)

Remember when Apple used to claim that they were in the super computer league. Now I don't even see Apple in the top 500--HP and IBM make up nearly 75% of the total and even a bunch of dells are listed.

Perhaps Apple should try networking a cluster of iPods or Apple TV units.

Where are the days thats Apple ran the ads of a "super computer in box." The Mac OS barely even qualifies as 64-bit these days.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...