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!

DARPA Wants a 19" Super-Efficient Supercomputer

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the as-do-we-all dept.

Supercomputing 200

coondoggie writes "If you can squish all the processing power of, say, an IBM Roadrunner supercomputer inside a 19-inch box and make it run on about 60 kilowatts of electricity, the government wants to talk to you. The extreme scientists at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency this week issued a call for research that might develop a super-small, super-efficient super beast of a computer. Specifically, DARPA's desires for Ubiquitous High Performance Computing (UHPC) will require a new system-wide technology approach including hardware and software co-design to minimize energy dissipation per operation and maximize energy efficiency, with a 50GFLOPS per watt goal."

cancel ×

200 comments

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

extreme scientists (0, Offtopic)

johncandale (1430587) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498029)

Extreme Scientists will be on x TV next year

Re:extreme scientists (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28498175)

Back *waaaaay* off, man. I'm an *extreme* scientist!

Re:extreme scientists (2, Funny)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498239)

Back *waaaaay* off, man. I'm an *extreme* scientist!

That sounds like a nice bumper sticker. For the rear bumper.

Re:extreme scientists (4, Funny)

Quothz (683368) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498285)

Back *waaaaay* off, man. I'm an *extreme* scientist!

Oh, yeah? Where's your badge [scq.ubc.ca] ?

Re:extreme scientists (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#28499927)

Lots of funny ones there, but I think Hannibal Lector did the captions:

The "I've eaten what I study" badge.
Recipients have prepared their object of study as a cuisine item for eating. Hopefully, the minority of MDs are ineligible for this one. (J)

Re:extreme scientists (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28498305)

Hey, anyone see AlexPKeatonInDa? I could really use some head right now.

- Wolf Bearclaw

oblig (0)

Kardos (1348077) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498035)

Now, imagine a Beowulf cluster of those....

Re:oblig (5, Funny)

Kratisto (1080113) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498313)

Grendel wouldn't stand a chance!

Yeah sure (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28498037)

If you can squish all the processing power of, say, an IBM Roadrunner supercomputer inside a 19-inch box and make it run on about 60 kilowatts of electricity, the government wants to talk to you.

And just as soon as they go back to loving and protecting freedom, then and only then will the government deserve my help with anything.

Re:Yeah sure (3, Informative)

rtyhurst (460717) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498083)

19 inch box?

The IBM Roadrunner:

"occupies approximately 6,000 square feet..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Roadrunner [wikipedia.org]

Good luck with that...

Re:Yeah sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28498137)

19 inch box?

The IBM Roadrunner:

"occupies approximately 6,000 square feet..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Roadrunner [wikipedia.org]

Good luck with that...

Yeah, the physics/logistics sure did have a lot to do with GP's comment about whether it is moral to do any favors for a government that has abandoned the good principles it once stood for. Oh, wait, no they don't.

Next time you want to be noticed by responding to a post that's near the top of the discussion, please choose one that is related in some way to what you want to say. I really am asking - if I wanted to rant and rave and give you a hard time I could do much worse than this. It's just that, for anyone who is not too oblivious to notice it, the rather blatant attempt to get attention distracts from the point you were trying to make.

Re:Yeah sure (3, Insightful)

Luke has no name (1423139) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498235)

17" tower? 3.8 GHz?

I'm sure the thinkers of 1941 would be shocked to know what we can do now, given they were running 10 Hz on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z3_(computer) [wikipedia.org]

Simpler solution. (1, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498857)

Redefine a Gigaflop. Say 1 billion floating point instructions per century.

Hey - It worked for hard disk manufacturers for gigabytes.

It works all the time for food companies when they say something now has "only" X number of calories per portion, by making the portions something like "2 potato chips."

It works for ISPs for "unlimited Internet access".

It works for Microsoft for "most secure [insert whatever] ever."

It worked for George "Mission Accomplished" Bush. Kinda ...

It'll work for Barack "No tax increase for anyone making under $250,000" Obama. (okay, I'll give you that it's really doubtful for that one)

Now where's my grant money?

Re:Simpler solution. (2, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#28499719)

Redefine a Gigaflop. Say 1 billion floating point instructions per century.

Gigaflop doesn't even have a time dimension.

Re:Yeah sure (5, Funny)

TCM (130219) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498811)

19 inch box?

They didn't say how high.

In other news, progress on a space elevator has been confirmed. Curiously, it's 19 inch wide.

Re:Yeah sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28499271)

I find your ideas fascinating. Where, pray tell, may I subscribe to your newsletter?

Re:Yeah sure (1)

Reikk (534266) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498963)

19 inch box? I think I once dated that girl..

Re:Yeah sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28499575)

I suppose you can throw a Roadrunner into a black hole, to squeeze the space...just keep it on a leash so it stops before crossing the horizon...

Re:Yeah sure (2, Interesting)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#28499525)

And just as soon as they go back to loving and protecting freedom, then and only then will the government deserve my help with anything.

Yeah, my first thought on this was whether perhaps those were the requirements to get the things inside every AT&T-style NSA listening room.

maybe it can run (1)

weirdo557 (959623) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498051)

maybe it can run windows vista

These aren't normal scientists... (4, Funny)

Karganeth (1017580) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498063)

...They're EXTREME scientists!

57KW air-cooled 19" Rack? (1)

lobiusmoop (305328) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498079)

You must be joking. That's like packing in 30 2KW electric fan heaters into a rack, obstructing the airflow with a ton of other junk and praying it won't melt. Good luck with that.

Re:57KW air-cooled 19" Rack? (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498389)

A KW of heating power is a lot different from a KW of processing power I imagine. Especially if some of that power is for refridgeration.

Re:57KW air-cooled 19" Rack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28498583)

A KW of power ends up as heat, no matter what you do with it. That's why opening the fridge door doesn't cool the room. Read up on something we like to call the laws of thermodynamics.

Re:57KW air-cooled 19" Rack? (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498669)

Yes, but we're not talking about a room, we're talking about the confined space of a rack. Nothing was said about not being able to produce heat, as long as it gets out of the case before the hardware fries.

Re:57KW air-cooled 19" Rack? (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498721)

Never mind actually, someone in another thread has pointed out the obvious: that this is a rack, not 1u of a rack :) 57kw in a rack is probably quite doable.

Re:57KW air-cooled 19" Rack? (1)

kenh (9056) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498773)

Sure it is, just shove 42 1,500 Watt 1U power supplies in a standard cabinet.

Re:57KW air-cooled 19" Rack? (1)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 5 years ago | (#28499209)

Expended energy always becomes waste heat. There's not much difference between drawing 500 watts in a space heater and drawing it with some other appliance from a heating perspective unless the appliance absorbs energy in some way (such as boiling water).

Even with a fridge.

Re:57KW air-cooled 19" Rack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28498415)

There are 15 KW rated routers that are rack sized, and they only suck air in at the bottom through a small hole.

Google CRS-1

Re:57KW air-cooled 19" Rack? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28498463)

If it's Cisco, they suck a lot more than that.

Re:57KW air-cooled 19" Rack? (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498693)

IANAP, but... how much of that 15kw is used locally in processing though, versus transmitted as energy/signals to another network node?

Re:57KW air-cooled 19" Rack? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498867)

99.99...%

Re:57KW air-cooled 19" Rack? (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498453)

It's not so far fetched I think. Look at those tiny tiny little cores on your processor die. No, that's the cache, look harder. Wayyy down there.

Re:57KW air-cooled 19" Rack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28498635)

Thats why its called Research.

Re:57KW air-cooled 19" Rack? (2, Insightful)

GaratNW (978516) | more than 5 years ago | (#28499709)

Exactly. There are always incredulous responses to this kind of challenge. Everything is impossible. Until it's not anymore. That's research, that's progress. There's no better way to get people to innovate on crazy shit then to tell them it's almost impossible.

Re:57KW air-cooled 19" Rack? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498921)

I think it is doable. The whole machine must be air-cooled but nothing in the RFP says that liquid cooling could not be used internally.

Re:57KW air-cooled 19" Rack? (1)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 5 years ago | (#28499427)

You know... all they have to do is wait 10 years and they can just pick up a few Playstation 5's or Xbox 4's from Wal-Mart to do the job. In case they didn't realize, all those nifty bullet-points are highly desirable things for computers in both the consumer and commercial markets as well:

* Highly efficient energy usage
* New systems and programming models to develop for massively concurrent processing
* Highly fault-tolerant

Advanced computer technology is something that the market is pushing ahead at a phenomenal rate anyhow, and specifically, computer gaming is driving it even faster. I don't think the defense department really has to push development of this to advance the state of the art - it will happen with or without their incentives.

Could at least editors have a look at TFA? (4, Informative)

Gruturo (141223) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498089)

It's a 19" _rack_, not _box_. As in, the standard (non-telco) datacenter rack size, accomodating up to 42U, 19" wide.

Re:Could at least editors have a look at TFA? (2, Funny)

eliphalet (1222732) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498157)

How tall does this rack have to be?

19" tower and space elevator in one (5, Funny)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498257)

Two! Two! Two projects in one!

Re:19" tower and space elevator in one (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498703)

Two! Two! Two projects in one!

So seven projects then?

Re:Could at least editors have a look at TFA? (2, Informative)

Gruturo (141223) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498309)

How tall does this rack have to be?
Typically 42 Rack Units, as I said in the original post. A rack unit is 1.75" (and we use them even here in Europe so at least servers fit in racks, fortunately :-) ) so this makes the standard rack able to contain a little over 6 feet worth of hardware, or 185ish cm. Of course the rack itself is usually a bit taller since it has a base and some fans on top (let me stress: usually).

Re:Could at least editors have a look at TFA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28498263)

42AU? That's a tall order.

Re:Could at least editors have a look at TFA? (1)

Kratisto (1080113) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498323)

Are you trying to say that Extreme Scientists have nice Racks?

Re:Could at least editors have a look at TFA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28498371)

Are you trying to say that Extreme Scientists have nice Racks?

Of course extreme scientists have nice racks! Because they're EXTREEEEEEME!

Oh, sorry. Having a Buzzed Bunny flashback. Will go dunk my head in water before I start to get graphic. EXTREEEEEEMELY graphic.

Re:Could at least editors have a look at TFA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28498365)

Some 19" boxes are 1U high, 2U high, 6U high. They're just asking for one that's 42U high. Maximum. I'm sure if you could give them a 6U version, they'd be happy with that also.

Re:Could at least editors have a look at TFA? (2, Insightful)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498513)

hmmm... fits in one rack and has enough processing to do word recognition on all of the calls coming in to one telephone central office simultaneously. I wonder what they want a whole bunch of these for?

Re:Could at least editors have a look at TFA? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 5 years ago | (#28499567)

In house Narus for the rest of the US gov?

Re:Could at least editors have a look at TFA? (1)

kenh (9056) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498747)

Naw, how deep can I make the cabinet ;^)

Re:Could at least editors have a look at TFA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28498813)

The editors simply copied the first line of TFA.
Maybe you should write the author and complain.

No problem (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28498105)

Just stick a human brain in a bucket. It's small, quiet, cool and just feed it a Cheeto every once in a while to keep it running.

Re:No problem (2, Funny)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498429)

Well, since Darpa also wants the operating system to be self aware, that's a start.

Re:No problem (5, Interesting)

oneirophrenos (1500619) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498479)

Just stick a human brain in a bucket. It's small, quiet, cool and just feed it a Cheeto every once in a while to keep it running.

And since the human brain has a computational power of 100 petaflops at 20 watts [movementarian.com] , it'd well exceed DARPA's requirements.

Re:No problem (4, Funny)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498549)

And since the human brain has a computational power of 100 petaflops at 20 watts, it'd well exceed DARPA's requirements.

Only before you subtract the power used to think about pr0n. Or you can use a female brain, it'll no nuclear on you only once a month.

Re:No problem (2, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28499073)

What happens if we use an Ab Normal brain?

Zombie bait (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498673)

Just stick a human brain in a bucket.

Yeah, we tried that already . . . but brains in buckets tend to attract too many zombies . . . you end up spending way to much money on ammunition for gun shots to the zombie heads . . . though, the sysops seem to love the action.

Going against Resistance is futile. Sidestep it. (3, Interesting)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498123)

Supercool that fucker! That might help a lot!

60,000 watts? (1)

retro128 (318602) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498163)

Is that all they're allowing? Power nazis.

Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28498165)

1. Buy EEE PC
2. Soak it in fluid herbal viagra sold by Mr. Hammand Zo-Moki Gabbaballa on the internet
3. ???
4. Profit !

Where will be that cabinet? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498201)

If could be put at near 0 K (and the power to maintain that temperature is not counted) maybe a superconducing supercomputer could get that speed in that size.

Re:Where will be that cabinet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28498423)

No. "Ubiquituous" and supercomputer in the same line means only one thing: onsite cryptanalysis in datacenters, trying to read your pgp-encrypted mail. The NSA doesn't care about extreme temperature superconductivity; it cares about putting these in racks across the world to read data like crazy.

Bio-computing perhaps? (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498273)

Perhaps with bio-computing or near-atom-scale computing, with the equivalent of transistors being not much bigger than a baker's dozen standard-sized buckyballs.

But with conventional technology? I think Moore's law will break down before we reach this goal.

The brain-in-a-bucket comment earlier is probably more insightful than funny in this context.

If i could do that (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498293)

Do you think id admit it and have the Feds take it from me for nothing and classify it? No thanks.

And for the record, it wouldn't be that hard to do, as long as you wanted a semi-dedicated supercomputer and not a general purpose box.. But no, i wont tell you how, even if i was authorized.

Re:If i could do that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28499559)

They don't take it from you. It is very well paid for.

Thermionics and stuff (1)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498303)

Pack thermionic converters between the components. They'll help cool and recover some power from heat back to power. They can be on the board, or placed on a cover over it in such a way as to fit between the board components. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/electricity-1205.html [mit.edu]

Build in parallel processing with 16 processors, 4 on each side of a 4D-cube, as in the Connection Machine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connection_Machine [wikipedia.org]

Three boards, stacked. Top, thermionics on the underside fitting between the main components, top side of the board is keyboard. Main in the middle, components top side. Bottom board, cram full of memory, below main board to keep it away from the heat. Vents underneath and through memory and main boards, so convection can feed heat to the top board.

DUH PC (1)

OverZealous.com (721745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498341)

I think they should include DARPA in the acronym, so you get to spend all this money on a DUH PC.

Maybe it could even run WinDUHs!

It would be an induhspensible part of our computing future, duhtermining the ability of our government's uhbility to duhrive new induhstries!

I'm In: +1 , Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28498351)

"If you can squish all the processing power of, say, an IBM Roadrunner supercomputer inside a 19-inch box and make it run on about 60 kilowatts of electricity, the government wants to talk to you."

I can; however, BEFORE we talk, I'll need to have Euro
100,000,000 deposited in my bank account and the same
amount AFTER the discussion so they can proceed with their new WEAPONS DESIGN PROGRAM.

Yours In Condensed Matter,
Kilgore Trout, Physicist (Mad)

wtf (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28498373)

Fuck DARPA, I want one of those too.

come to think of it I want one the size of a cell phone that runs off of .002 watts.
a girl that looks like that chick in Transformers,
a trillion dollars
and lots of other stuff


for some reason my wishes don't make headlines on slashdot.

Re:wtf (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498493)

Yes, please tag this story "wheresmypony".

NVIDIA (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498495)

What about the NVIDIA Cuda architecture? They claim it is a super computer for under 10 grand and doesn't require special power requirements. But, I wonder if it will only perform as a super computer for graphics ....

Re:NVIDIA (2, Interesting)

stevelinton (4044) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498629)

I imagine they will build something along those lines. Lots of highly specialised cores that can do Floating Point really well if it carefully compiled for them; some switches for some fast short-range network protocol probably and a few general purpose cores to manage things. Maybe some field-programmable components so that you can customise the hardware for new applications. The current nVidia Tesla series achieves around 1GFLOP per Watt, and you can get 1 TFLOP, consuming 1 KW per U, (ignoring host processors and many other things), so they're looking at roughly a 50 fold improvement by designing for HPC from the ground up, rather than graphics first and HPC as a side-show. That, plus a couple of generations of Moore's law doesn't sound too improbable.

Re:NVIDIA (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498911)

Careful Compilation?

â Develop new technologies and execution models that do not require application programmers to explicitly manage system complexity, in terms of architectural attributes with respect to data locality and concurrency, to achieve their performance and time to solution goals - programmability.

Billion way parallelism is also mentioned. So. It has to be easy to program

Re:NVIDIA (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498681)

You're missing the point-- Darpa feels that it is ill served by current commodity supercomputers, and wants something revolutionary. The deadline for delivery is in 2017, so it's unlikely that today's tech comes close.

Re:NVIDIA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28499625)

Yehaa, Stanford's Merrimac has a change of becoming a reality in a modern form!

Fitting it in a 19 inch rack should be easy (2, Funny)

DrBuzzo (913503) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498515)

Just make a really really really tall 19 inch cabinet.

Should it... (1)

juanergie (909157) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498519)

... run Linux?

Re:Should it... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28499741)

> ... run Linux?

It probably will.

Will fit inside your Car Analogy (4, Insightful)

sabre86 (730704) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498565)

This combination of power required and volume would allow essentially for current day supercomputer in every single military vehicle, assuming the weight and heat exhaust constraints aren't too onerous. 60 kW is about 80 horsepower and even a 19 in x 19 in x 19 in cube is only about 4 cubic feet*, which is less than than the trunk space on a Mazda Miata (5.1 cubic ft for a 2006 model), so it's within the space-power envelope of a small sports car, albeit the engine would need to be uprated some to account for the power drain.

Having such great computational power available to every single vehicle would open up a huge realm of possibilities: Combine it with sensors you could detect damage and minimize its effects by comparing the vehicle's response to a detailed finite element model. You could do on the fly aerodynamic analysis, allowing a fighter to keep performing to it's best even after damage has significantly altered it's shape. You could manage the control of thousands of actuators, allowing you to create a shapeshifting walker out of programmable matter [wikipedia.org] , and you could definitely do learning/optimization algorithms that would allow for an AI capable of a significant amount of learning. Combine this with the amount of image processing it could do, and you're very near a completely autonomous, smart enough combat vehicle.

While it's a too big for a man portable system, with work, you could fit such a device (and a power source) into something as small as a motorcycle or a somewhat scaled up iRobot Warrior [irobot.com] . That's not much more than man sized. It may not be a T-800, that much computation in that small size and power envelope is enough build a near-man sized autonomous fighting vehicle that can see, learn and adapt with an endurance on gas of several hours. It's a bit frightening to consider.

--sabre86

Re:Will fit inside your Car Analogy (1)

JobyOne (1578377) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498615)

But where, exactly, would the batteries that can push 60 kilowatts go? I don't think they would fit in the trunk of a Mazda Miata with this magical imaginary computer.

Re:Will fit inside your Car Analogy (2, Informative)

sabre86 (730704) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498833)

But where, exactly, would the batteries that can push 60 kilowatts go? I don't think they would fit in the trunk of a Mazda Miata with this magical imaginary computer.

Or more importantly, batteries that can push 60 kW for any period of time. I think that with enough cells, which you can make about as small as you want, you might get the power, but you definitely won't have the energy to run it for anytime whatsoever. The energy density is nowhere near good enough. But, Sticking with the Miata example, there's easily enough power under the hood to drive both the car and the computer, particularly with a high output option like the BPT [wikipedia.org] . You just need a generator, like the 53 kW version in the Volt [gm-volt.com] . For an automotive sized and powered vehicle, using year 2000 level power and materials technology, you could easily add such a computer and all it's benefits. That means effective, mobile, car sized autonomous fighting vehicles (since this is a DARPA project, I'm considering the military applications first) are extremely easy if you have this kind of computer, and motorcycle/Terminator sized units are probably possible, just using gas burning engines -- no advanced technology except the computer.

I apologize that wasn't clear from the original post.

--sabre86

Re:Will fit inside your Car Analogy (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#28499619)

But where, exactly, would the batteries that can push 60 kilowatts go? I don't think they would fit in the trunk of a Mazda Miata with this magical imaginary computer.

I have a battery rated for 62.5A @11.1V. I could easily fit 100 of them within the trunk of my Mazda Miata, with lots of room to spare, which gets you about 70kW. Granted, for only two minutes, but in fact a few hundred could fit in the Miata...
(the battery is 16mmx44mmx141mm and weighs about 200g. )

Alternate way to get one (2, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498567)

Just stay around girls called Sarah Connor. A supercomputer of around that size will appear eventually, and you will take as bonus a portable nuclear reactor, and a somewhat aggressive AI. Be sure to erase memory because it surely will contain a nasty trojan horse.

Heat (1)

JobyOne (1578377) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498597)

I can't imagine pushing 60 kilowatts through a 19" rack mount ANYTHING without EVERYTHING catching on fire.

Seriously, that's a lot of electricity.

Re:Heat (1)

InfiniteWisdom (530090) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498745)

That's 50A at 120V. A very common and standard config is to have two 20A PDUs in a rack, so 50A isn't that much of an increase. You do need an efficient cooling setup, but it's nothing that most commercial datacenters couldn't handle.

Re:Heat (1)

InfiniteWisdom (530090) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498751)

Actually, never mind. I was off by a zero there. That is quite a bit of cooling!

Re:Heat (3, Insightful)

Pyrus.mg (1152215) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498883)

The downwash from the rotors on the black helicopter its mounted on should help.

Re:Heat (2, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28499151)

By my calculations 1 m^3/sec of air can carry away 65kW at a 50 degK temperature rise. That's doable, though you don't want it exhausting into your office.

aka (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498621)

playstation 4

What's it going to be used for? An idea.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28498627)

Looking at the general specs, it basically needs to be small, have low power consumption, and be programmable by current means - no special programming ability. If it were to be used here in the States, why the size and power consumption limitations? Why not allow for specialized programming? It's almost as if they need something that will be able to be used and maintained by a typical military technical grunt out in the field. As if it would be put in a back of a truck and run on a gas powered or solar generator.

Just putting that out there.

Re:What's it going to be used for? An idea.. (1)

kenh (9056) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498817)

It would have to be where a network connection of any usable speed is impossible.

BTW, just how big is a steady, 60 KWh solar panel? It appears to require several thousand (around 4,000 100 Watt panels in the mid-atlantic region (and suitable battery infrastructure) to generate 60 KWh for 24 hours a day (1.44 MegaWatt/hours for every 24 hours).

The above is from http://www.batterycountry.com/ShopSite/sec.htm [batterycountry.com]

Re:What's it going to be used for? An idea.. (1)

cryptoluddite (658517) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498961)

It would have to be where a network connection of any usable speed is impossible.

Clearly this supercomputer is intended for an autonomous killing machine... a terminator, if you will. As such it doesn't not need a massive network connection, just enough to control some servos really. At 19" this component would compromise the torso of the machine.

BTW, just how big is a steady, 60 KWh solar panel? It appears to require several thousand

Perhaps, but this machine will no doubt will contain some type of nuclear power core.

Yeah I know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28499431)

Comprise... proofreading fail.

And a pony (1)

Daniel Weis (1209058) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498683)

If you can squish all the processing power of say an IBM Roadrunner supercomputer inside a 19-inch box and make it run on about 60 kilowatts of electricity, the government wants to talk to you.

Well then. I'm sure people will go with the more traditional routes of terrorism, theft, and tax evasion to get a one on one session with the government. After all, it just seems easier.

I have one (1)

BountyX (1227176) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498715)

My 19" laptop has a super man logo on it...

It's a sad state of affairs... (0)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498845)

When the most important specification of a supercomputer is it's power consumption.

BEOWULF! (2, Funny)

dandart (1274360) | more than 5 years ago | (#28498913)

But will it run Crysis? But in all seriousness, BEOWULF OF DSs!

Why? (1)

Billy the Mountain (225541) | more than 5 years ago | (#28499223)

Why would DARPA want this? Maybe they want a AI that can navigate aircraft or gound vehicles? BTW, I think it's ironic that autonomous operation seems easier to develop for aircraft than for ground vehicles when you consider that pilots get way more respect than the average municipal bus driver.

BTM

Hmmmm (4, Funny)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28499261)

So now we know what the hardware requirements for Windows 10 are going to be.

Whoa. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28499345)

Imagine a Beowolf cluster of those things!

Government job (2, Funny)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | more than 5 years ago | (#28499463)

Given this is the government would I still get funding if I developed a computer that was capable of 50 Gwatts per FLOP?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?