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!

An Interesting Boot Log On Alpha

HeUnique posted more than 13 years ago | from the Who-says-Linux-is-not-scalable? dept.

Digital 244

Here is an interesting Boot log on an Alpha. What is so interesting about this boot log? Nothing special, just that this Alpha's got 31 Processors, 256GB RAM -- looks VERY impressive. I wouldn't mind having one of those beasts at work *drooling all over*. Oh, and it compiles the kernel very fast :)

cancel ×

244 comments

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

I said that (2)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 13 years ago | (#749121)

About 3 stories ago. I wish Compaq would commit to keeping the line running, at least for a few years. It'd make my 64 bit system purchasing decision a lot easier...

Why would you want to run Linux on this? (2)

karzan (132637) | more than 13 years ago | (#749124)

Yes, Linux is cool and performs fairly well. But Tru64 UNIX is optimised for Alpha hardware and far more scaleable. Yes, Linux is more scaleable than ever before, but still not as scaleable as most UNIX systems. It seems like a waste to spend all this money on excellent hardware and then stick Linux on it, degrading the performance.

Need some sort of notification system.... (1)

Enigma2175 (179646) | more than 13 years ago | (#749126)

/. really needs to start notifying sites when they print up a story about them, this one has already been slashdotted and the story has only been up for a little while. If we could tell them beforehand, perhaps they could brace for the onslaught.

Enigma .sigless

Re:My question is... (1)

superdoo (13097) | more than 13 years ago | (#749132)

You only make yourself look silly when you post comments without reading the link(s)... let me hit you with the cluebyfour...

"The only caveats are that one of the CPUs was out of
the system at the time (hence 31 CPUs, not 32)"

Re:Forget the CPUs, look at the IO! (1)

tap (18562) | more than 13 years ago | (#749133)

But check out that floppy, it's a 2.88MB! Even the floppy drive is better than what I've got in the beowulf cluster at work. I feel so inferior.

I bet my keyboard is better than theirs, at least I have that.

ACHTUNG! ALLES LOOKENSPEEPERS! (3)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#749136)

ACHTUNG! ALLES LOOKENSPEEPERS!
Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben.
Ist easy schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und poppencorken mit spitzensparken.
Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen.
Das rubbernecken sichtseeren keepen das cotten-pickenen hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und watchen das blinkenlichten.

Oh, wait, front panels went out in the 70's. nevermind.

Re:Scalability (2)

Dave Zarzycki (8609) | more than 13 years ago | (#749137)

"Linux pthreads" is really just a library implemented on top of the Linux kernel clone() system call. The clone API scales just fine. The pthreads library on the other hand has "issues."

Compare this to the "Highest Intel BogoMIPS" (1)

MrScience (126570) | more than 13 years ago | (#749139)

A quick search on Google revealed [linuxdoc.org] that an 8x Pentium III (Xeon) at 500 MHz, SMP would run at 3996.06 BogoMips. Compared to 46170.90 BogoMIPS. Or about 8% of the box. Of course, I wonder how the price comparison point would be. :)

Ok, I finally tracked down [compaq.com] the Alpha pricing. But I'll be danged if I can get it to work. Can someone else? yeeshk.

Re:2.4.xx scales well (2)

Dave Zarzycki (8609) | more than 13 years ago | (#749143)

Linux is king-of-the-hill in SpecWeb99 tests on One, Two, Four, and *8-way* systems. :-)

Re:When I was yer age... (3)

Rand Race (110288) | more than 13 years ago | (#749144)

Now that you mention it, one of my hyper-intelegent... well formerly hyper-intelegent.... monkeys does drool over the ferrite core memory. I was having them try a new scheme for creating 200Mhz double data rate ferrite core memory when one of the iron doughnuts escaped containment at just under escape velocity blowing a neat hole through said monkey's head. Now he drools over the memory... hell over anything near him... and has some strange tendancys to violent outbreaks of pure simian angst. I changed his name to Phineas since it's apropo and he doesn't respond to Lucullus anymore. Pompey, Cato, and Cornelius were loathe to return to work after the accident so I had to apply more chunky voltage to their testicles (this is why I use male hyper-intelegent monkeys), Lucullus too since it seems to, eventualy, calm him down some.

Re:Just why does this matter (1)

xtermz (234073) | more than 13 years ago | (#749145)

cant be afforded? two words my man: drug dealing



we do not condone the actions being condoned by the condoners condoning the condoned actions.




"sex on tv is bad, you might fall off..."

Great! (1)

ericdano (113424) | more than 13 years ago | (#749148)

Great, now I'm not going to be able to sleep at night. It makes my Dual Pentium II machine look bad.

Uhhhh... (2)

compwiz3688 (98919) | more than 13 years ago | (#749150)

Starting system logger: Warning: /boot/System.map has an incorrect kernel version.
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_always_defrag is missing -- cannot control IP defragmentation


Now which processor is doing that? Is it the RAM strips? Oh wait.... it's the modules...
Ok, I don't mean to troll, but if I want to show-off my machine, I'd like to fix those little warnings first before sending the dmesg.
---
dd if=/dev/random of=~/.ssh/authorized_keys bs=1 count=1024

Proof of Linux' scalability... (2)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 13 years ago | (#749154)

Anyone that doesn't believe that Linux scales, is mistaken. Anyone that professes the same is either ignorant of what's been going down for the past two years or is FUDing.

While I'll admit that the S/390 port is some proof of scalability- every little drop helps dispell myths.

Re:I could use all 31! (1)

Atticka (175794) | more than 13 years ago | (#749157)

drooling over what kind of key rate this would get on Distributed!!

Now if only Linux could use more than 2-4 CPUs... (1)

mholve (1101) | more than 13 years ago | (#749159)

Effectively!

I'd sooner run Solaris or Digital Unix on their native hardware - at least that way, all that power will be put to use! Linux just doesn't scale well beyond the workstation market yet.

While this is cool, I'm sorry - Linux isn't quite "up there" yet. Show me some hardcore applications that use this (nevermind Linux itself) under Linux...

who cares (1)

c0sm0 (190847) | more than 13 years ago | (#749160)

get a life

Re:Why would you want to run Linux on this? (1)

FeeDBaCK (42286) | more than 13 years ago | (#749164)

If you notice it is a guy who is working on the *kernel* for linux... plus he works for DEC^H^H^HCompaq... so I am sure he gets to play with all the cool toys they have there.

Forget the CPUs, look at the IO! (1)

victim (30647) | more than 13 years ago | (#749167)

That machine appears to have 8 100mbit ethernets, 4 scsi adapters, and 8 fiber channel controlers. Thats an IO monster. (Plus a floppy, for when their aboot gets pooched. :-)

Any speculation on what they are planning to do with this machine? (I rather doubt Quake.)

Seti on one of these monsters ... :-) (1)

UltraWide (181644) | more than 13 years ago | (#749172)

I worked with the previous High End Alpha servers They were VERY fast...

Wonder how many Seti at home an hour this sucker swallows?? :-)

Two faces of Linux. (1)

cacheMan (150533) | more than 13 years ago | (#749175)

IMHO, it seems that when it comes to linux, there are two groups of people, those that want to show how well Linux performs on the bleeding edge, and those that want to show how well Linux performs on their i386 circa 1991. The middle ground (read: Average User, 99% of computer owners) are somewhat ignored.

46170.90 BogoMIPS (1)

[Xorian] (112258) | more than 13 years ago | (#749177)

That probably makes it the fastest Linux machine in the known universe.

Well, at least at no-ops. :-)

Did I miss something? (1)

whatnotever (116284) | more than 13 years ago | (#749178)

The entire point of this story is that this guy has a sweet box? Or is there something akin to "news" in here?

Help me out here...

Re:Compare this to the "Highest Intel BogoMIPS" (1)

Darkbird (173560) | more than 13 years ago | (#749179)

BogoMips doesnt mean anything my dual celeron 500Mhz box shows 1998.0 Bogomips.... Just double the Mhz stuff.

Re:Proof of Linux' scalability... (1)

Garpenlov (34711) | more than 13 years ago | (#749180)


Anyone that doesn't believe that Linux scales, is mistaken. Anyone that professes the same is either ignorant of what's been going down for the past two years or is FUDing.


What are you talking about? You don't even know what you're talking about, and you had the gall to give yourself a starting score of 2.

Running on 2 processors does NOT equal "scalability." Scalability is a measure of how much MORE performance one gets out of a system for each processor one adds. So, perfect scalability would be, double the processors, double the performance (that never happens in real life, though). The question is, how much more performance can you get for each processor you add? The more you get, the more scalable you are. Just BOOTING on a bunch of processors isn't even a question...

This machine is so fast... (4)

matija (27014) | more than 13 years ago | (#749185)

It can play an hour's worth of MP3s in 78 seconds.

(and execute an infinite loop in less than 3.5 minutes)

Re:Proof of Linux' scalability... (1)

Tower (37395) | more than 13 years ago | (#749189)

Well... the S/390 port runs on a VM, so Linux doesn't know the kind of power that is actually down there... it thinks that it has one (or a couple) CPUs - not a whole 'frame... more like 41k single CPU machines (hmmm, you could beowulf them together over the internal 390 connections, but that's a nice waste of big iron)...


--

My boot log has one thing in common... (5)

Mignon (34109) | more than 13 years ago | (#749191)

It does my heart good to see, among all the messages for high-tech stuff,

ttyS00 at 0x03f8 (irq = 4) is a 16550A

All I need is another 255.8725 GB, another 29 processors, another 7 LAN cards, and I'm right there!

Re:Compare this to the "Highest Intel BogoMIPS" (1)

Darkbird (173560) | more than 13 years ago | (#749197)

Oh yea and since the kernel 2.2.16 all BogoMIPS are doubled for Intel's cpus. Go figure.

Comparing to Intel... (1)

eweaver (211016) | more than 13 years ago | (#749198)

Just for comparison, my Celeron 2 800 MHz gets 1599 bogoMIPS, which is very close to these Alphas (1578 or something). I expect a Pentium 3 at about 700 MHz would be comparable, so that gives us a 24,800 MHz Celeron or a 21,700 MHz Pentium 3.

It's fast. I wish I had one for Blender rendering...

A Canadian computer I see, eh? (2)

Skim123 (3322) | more than 13 years ago | (#749202)

aboot: Linux/Alpha SRM bootloader version 0.7
aboot: switching to OSF/1 PALcode version 1.75
aboot: booting from device 'SCSI 3 6 0 1 100 0 0'

This joke was aboot as funny as Canada's military presence, eh?

Re:Proof of Linux' scalability... (1)

BMazurek (137285) | more than 13 years ago | (#749205)

That has absolutely nothing to do with my statement. Please read it again.

You seem to be under the illusion that just because I state that recognizing processors!=scalability, that I am an NT bigot. Not so. I frequently balk at having to log onto an NT machine.

Intelligent boot messages (1)

rbennett (101090) | more than 13 years ago | (#749207)

I think that there needs to be some sort of "intelligence" in the boot up that will spit out messages like "Damn! 31 Processors. I am gonna kick some a**", and "256 freekin' GB of memory!" or at least at the end spit out "holy sh*t"

Re:One Question (1)

Ashran (107876) | more than 13 years ago | (#749208)

type "su"
and then enter the password ;)

Losing proposition. (2)

Poe (12710) | more than 13 years ago | (#749209)

How much software actually scales well to that many processors? I suspect quake would top out long before 31.

Re:One Question (1)

Tower (37395) | more than 13 years ago | (#749210)

Ask Jeeves [askjeeves.com] , of course...

Try Rusted Root, or Root Canal - those might help.
--

Chipset? (2)

superid (46543) | more than 13 years ago | (#749211)

In addition to the scalability of the kernel, I'm interested in the hardware that implements this on the motherboard. How big is the address bus? Data bus? What sort of bus is used to mux/demux all of this???

SuperID

Re:Scalability (1)

[Xorian] (112258) | more than 13 years ago | (#749212)

I've also heard from a colleague that the Linux pthreads implementation was having some problems under SMP (like mutexes not really mutually excluding). Since multi-threading is most useful when you have multiple processors, this seems like a serious deficiency. Maybe it's all better in 2.4, I haven't checked. Does anybody know?

who the hell is heunique (1)

Lord Omlette (124579) | more than 13 years ago | (#749213)

and why is he posting this drivel without at least introducing hisself first?
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057

Re:Need some sort of notification system.... (1)

SnakeStu (60546) | more than 13 years ago | (#749235)

This would be like the (seafaring) pirate's cry of "Prepare to be boarded!" Or maybe more like a submarine's dive klaxon... "Going down!"

Re:Not so imp...what?? (1)

Tower (37395) | more than 13 years ago | (#749236)

On first glance, one might guess that 1489 was the total # of BogoMIPS, but that just isn't right...
--

Powerful (3)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 13 years ago | (#749237)

Powerful, yes, but not as powerful as THIS [dragonswest.com]


--
Chief Frog Inspector

Re:Need some sort of notification system.... (2)

HeUnique (187) | more than 13 years ago | (#749238)

I have talked previously with them about their stories posted on slashdot.

They said that their machines could handle it easily...

Re:I said that (2)

mikefoley (51521) | more than 13 years ago | (#749239)

You mean that selling hundred, if not thousands, of Alpha's to the national labs for supercomputer work, and investing $500million last year with Samsung on new technology and $100 million this week to fund VC's in the biotech world that LOVE Alpha (like Celera) isn't enough of a commitment to you?

What WOULD be a commitment then?

FWIW, I work at API and we make Alpha's too and I have to say that it's getting damned frustrating listening to the FUD from IA-64 lovers, none of which have even touched an IA-64, no mind can AFFORD an IA-64. (You can get a new Alpha for under $3k)

Down? (1)

cdgod (132891) | more than 13 years ago | (#749240)



So impressive...
Can't even handle the /. Effect.

Re:Why would you want to run Linux on this? (1)

Tower (37395) | more than 13 years ago | (#749241)

The biggest issue is the binaries... gcc doesn't get nearly the amount of work for Alpha as it does for x86 (with good reason)... the Tru64 compiler is what has really made the difference, especially in floating point. Of course, more work on the MMU would be welcome too...

I was starting some compiler work for Alpha, then my board died, and I can't seem to get a new one - if anyone knows where I can get a board to suit a 533MHz 21164PC, please let me know...


--

Re:It all depends... (1)

mholve (1101) | more than 13 years ago | (#749242)

Yes, but if the OS doesn't support those CPUs and RAM effectively and efficiently then it's kind of stupid... ;>

Here's something better! :O) (1)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 13 years ago | (#749243)

375 GS320s! [207.18.199.3] Not running Linux, but still :O)

--
Garett

I submitted this story 3 weeks ago (1)

mikefoley (51521) | more than 13 years ago | (#749244)

Why is it interesting now and not 3 weeks ago?

How many BogoMIPS? (2)

Christopher B. Brown (1267) | more than 13 years ago | (#749245)

Due to them being largely meaningless, I tend to ignore them any time other than the first time I boot a given system; is 1489 fairly high? Or not?

I would find it unremarkable if there was some Intel chip that had an outrageously higher BogoMIPS rating that would disappear from the "running" as soon as you tossed POVRay onto it...

Re:slow news day? (2)

artdodge (9053) | more than 13 years ago | (#749246)

Call me an old fart, but I remember when 75% of slashdot posts were things like this.

Is this a breakthrough technology? No. Is this an earth-shaking legal or political development? No. Is it something that geeks the world over will have wet dreams about tonight? You bet your ass.

When I was yer age... (5)

Speare (84249) | more than 13 years ago | (#749247)

All the posts about "I need a towel" and "they should sell tickets just to touch it" are gonna look funny when this is just another slag heap of unusable parts.

"Why, when I was yer age, miboy, we had to put up with using a computer. That's a complicated physically connected brick of processing components. We thought a mere 2^5 processors was worth drooling over. Yes, miboy, I know your cochlear implant has more than that. You're missing the point. This thing was tremendous! It took up a whole rack: four times the size of a grown man! And all of its memory circuits were in the same cabinet, requiring massive cooling apparatus, unlike the distributed memory crystals that people embed in their jewelry."

Anyone still drooling over 2^5 address space on ferrite core memory? Anyone still drooling over 2^5 address lines? Or data lines?

Re:I said that (2)

codealot (140672) | more than 13 years ago | (#749265)

I wish Compaq would commit to keeping the line running, at least for a few years.

  • What kind of commitment do you want? They haven't exactlly announced its cancellation (like they did for NT). Compaq has plans for EV7 and EV8, at least. If they had any intention to pull the plug they would've quit engineering these by now.
  • Compaq isn't the only player... there's Samsung, API (who would cease to exist without Alpha, it's their sole business).
  • Compaq has a comparatively small but fiercely loyal VMS customer base. The VAX is EOL and they have no hardware option but (you guessed it) Alpha.

And so on. I don't know how these things start, but folks, Alpha is not going away. Sheesh.

slow news day? (1)

option8 (16509) | more than 13 years ago | (#749266)

it must be a slow news day for /. if we're posting our server logs..

It all depends... (1)

marcus (1916) | more than 13 years ago | (#749267)

...on the application. In many massive computationally intense applications, the OS is effectively irrelevant since 99.99999% of the CPU time is spent in the app and not doing system calls. Wanna do a fusion bomb simulation? How about weather? Just what kind of system resources does an app like that need? They need CPU and memory. Does this box have a lot of both? Semaphores? No. Pipes? Yes, but they're static and setup at the start. File I/O only happens at start and finish. After all that they've still got multiple NICs and SCSI cards.

Burst my bubble why doncha.... (1)

ToddN (190561) | more than 13 years ago | (#749268)

Damn, I was all excited too... my 2nd PPro 200 processor for my Compaq 5500 came in just before lunch.

Re:Proof of Linux' scalability... (1)

BMazurek (137285) | more than 13 years ago | (#749269)

Anyone that doesn't believe that Linux scales, is mistaken.

I don't see the correlation. Linux was able to recognize a bunch of processors. Congrats.

Detecting and utilizing those processors efficiently are two different things. Scalability is a function of a heck of a lot more variables than recognizing the number of processors available.

The point (3)

semaj (172655) | more than 13 years ago | (#749270)

People seem to be complaining that "this isn't news".. no, it's not the kind of thing that you'd see on your local TV news, but it's "News for Nerds". Which is, as I'm sure you're aware, what this is all about. Why should I care that you don't like this story? I didn't like the last one, do you care?

-

Re:Scalability (3)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#749271)

> Can anyone comment on the SMP performance linearity of the current Linux kernel on more than 4 CPUs?

It depends upon the task being performed of course. Some tasks can never be parallelized at all, regardless of how many CPUs you have and what operating system you are running.

> Did they every sort out the issues that prevented kernel socket (or was it I/O?) APIs
> being called concurrently by processes on multiple CPUs?

Yes, Linux TCP/IP is fully threaded and will run concurrently on all CPUs, assuming that there is work to be done on all of them. (a single socket will not run on 100 CPUs at the same time, for instance)

Re:46170.90 BogoMIPS (1)

Tyriphobe (28459) | more than 13 years ago | (#749272)

Not quite [linuxdoc.org] .

This mini-howto may be a little outdated, but its record for most BogoMIPS is 57648.96, with 144 PII's at 400MHz. Granted, that's substantially more processors...

I could use all 31! (4)

d.valued (150022) | more than 13 years ago | (#749276)

Processors 1 to 15 would work on distributed.net...

Numbers 16 to 20 would do Seti.

Numbers 21-29 would run Quake3, Civ:CTP, and XWS.

Numbers 30 and 31 would run the realtime disk encryption/decryption series :)

Parallel processing sucks (1)

)Mr_Bl0nde( (237322) | more than 13 years ago | (#749277)


It's never going to amount to anything other than solving a few math problems quickly. People need to shutup about the beowulfs.

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

joe52 (74496) | more than 13 years ago | (#749281)

The point is that he got Linux to boot on a 31 processor alpha box. That's it.

So who was it said... (2)

zorgon (66258) | more than 13 years ago | (#749283)

Alpha chips were a dead technology? Keep saying that, it'll drive the price down! OK, an Ask /. question here: What MPI tools are available for Linux, like LAM? IOW, how does this clever guy do useful things with his Moonbase Alpha?

One Question (1)

jonfromspace (179394) | more than 13 years ago | (#749286)

How do I get ROOT?

so (2)

British (51765) | more than 13 years ago | (#749289)

So is this the Jugs magazine centerfold for kernel hackers? "Look at the processors on THAT!"

arrrgghhh.... you bstd! (1)

ndfa (71139) | more than 13 years ago | (#749291)

I was all happy that i finally have a Sun E-420 with 4CPU's and 2 Gb's of mem to play with today! Well actually i have to install oracle and patch it up, but still.... would have been fun... BUT NOOOOOO, you have to come and destroy it for all of us with that boot log.
AND just cause you did that... what the hell is up with all those warnings, freaking do make install ( i think.. i use slackware so i am not sure) and fix the System.map problems.... ohh and in case it is possible, can i get a shell account :)
42K bogomips.. make my 900 seem so _low!

"tweaked" startup text (2)

YoJ (20860) | more than 13 years ago | (#749296)

I'm tweaking my personal copy of the Linux source code right now to give me even more powerful-looking text when it starts up. Whatever impresses the chicks...

Computing speed is relative. You can buy a faster computer, or make your mind go slower. Bring out the beer!

My question is... (1)

Tower (37395) | more than 13 years ago | (#749297)

... why 31? Why not 32?
--

2.4.xx scales well (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#749298)

The TCP/IP code is fully SMP threaded. It runs on multiple processors in parallel. The same is true for the VFS layer. Linux already holds the world-record SPECweb99 score on a 4-way box, which would not have been possible without good SMP scalability.

Re:Not so imp...what?? (3)

sprag (38460) | more than 13 years ago | (#749299)

"Feh" is right. Who needs an alpha when I can get 0.0033 Bogomips on my c64. Read it and weep!
Imagine a beowulf cluster of C64s! Think of the power!

Pointless. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#749300)

This is perhaps the worst story that I've seen here in the past 6 months. You're posting a *boot log*? You're promoting the "geeks drool over hardware" myth. Your grammar is poor - "this Alpha got 31 processors".

NEWS FLASH! GEEK BOOTS LINUX ON ALPHA!

Way to go!</sarcasm>

Re:Need some sort of notification system.... (1)

Enigma2175 (179646) | more than 13 years ago | (#749301)

I don't think it is the box that is the problem, usually the pipe is full before the box starts even ticking over.

Enigma .sigless

Re:So what is the real use for the machine? (1)

kahuna (102672) | more than 13 years ago | (#749302)

The swap looks a bit undersized for 256GB...

What happened today?? (2)

Alternity (16492) | more than 13 years ago | (#749303)

Here is what might have just happened :
1) This is one heck of a boring day with nothing happening at all.
2) HeUnique just received the rights to post and wanted to post something, anything quickly before those rights faded away.
3) Someone evil took controle of /. and decided to focus our attentions by confusing us with that headline while he's kidnaping CmdrTaco and Hemos.
4) I was really bored at work and decided to reply to that headline even if it didn't hold much interests.


"When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun...

Enough speed for Windows 2000? (2)

BigBlockMopar (191202) | more than 13 years ago | (#749304)


Quoted from article:

Oh, and it compiles the kernel VERY fast :)

Good. Maybe it'll be fast enough to start up Windows 2000 in a reasonable time frame.


<grin> Think of how much *ass* you could kick running SETI@home on that!

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

Spatch (28798) | more than 13 years ago | (#749305)

The entire point of this story is that this guy has a sweet box? Or is there something akin to "news" in here?

Well, Linux isn't 'officially' supported in the Alpha GS series. That this guy was able to get it working and on 31 of the 32 processors is pretty interesting and shows folks it can be done.

Or would you be satisfied with more Jon Katz ramblings? Yammering on about "Shadowrunner" hardly strikes me as "newsworthy", but YMMV...

Okay. It boots. (3)

Flower (31351) | more than 13 years ago | (#749306)

Now what I want to know is how it performs. With 31 cpus, 8 nics and a boatload of I/O, this is a great opprotunity to get some hard data on a variety of issues and figure out how to make the kernel better.

imo, what it can do well is less important than what it can't. To paraphrase Limp Bizkit, "Let's break some sh**."

Hey! (1)

superdoo (13097) | more than 13 years ago | (#749307)

"SMP: Total of 31 processors activated (46170.90 BogoMIPS)."

Hey, let's watch newbies drool and argue about BogoMIPS, huh wanna? k?

oh GOD! (5)

-=Izzy=- (80039) | more than 13 years ago | (#749309)

its porn for geeks! if you will excuse me... i think i need a towel now.

Obligatory beowolf comment (2)

Maddog_Delphi97 (173780) | more than 13 years ago | (#749311)

I can't resist saying this.... it'd be cool to have a beowolf cluster of these babies!!

Scalability (4)

sql*kitten (1359) | more than 13 years ago | (#749313)

from the Who-says-Linux-is-not-scalable? dept.

Can anyone comment on the SMP performance linearity of the current Linux kernel on more than 4 CPUs? Did they every sort out the issues that prevented kernel socket (or was it I/O?) APIs being called concurrently by processes on multiple CPUs?

Not so imp...what?? (4)

OlympicSponsor (236309) | more than 13 years ago | (#749319)

I did a search for "Bogo" to find the BogoMIPS and found this:

Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS

Feh, I thought, either Alpha's REALLY suck or (more likely) there's a bug there. Then I took a closer look:

SMP starting up secondaries.
Calibrating delay loop... 1493.17 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1493.17 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1493.17 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 1488.98 BogoMIPS
SMP: Total of 31 processors activated (46170.90 BogoMIPS).


Oh.
--

Re:Scalability (1)

ndfa (71139) | more than 13 years ago | (#749321)

well i guess you would have to test the scalability by running programs and seeing how the load was being distributed and all that jazz! But hell just the fact that it boots and runs is a good thing... one cpu at a time and soon we will be ready to take on the Himalayas :)

Imagine 375 GS320s running Tru64 UNIX. (5)

Chyeburashka (122715) | more than 13 years ago | (#749322)

Here is the link [207.18.199.3] . The building to house this monster is under construction and ahead of schedule. At 16.5 KW apiece, thats over 6 MW just to power the boxes.

Re:Parallel processing sucks (1)

FeeDBaCK (42286) | more than 13 years ago | (#749324)

You've apprently never had to run a server with a BIG Oracle database or just about any other heavily hit service which eats CPUs for breakfast. Yes, I admit the ignorant trolls about Beowulf's are annoying... but parallel processing has *many* uses (as far as SMP is concerned.)

Processor 7 is down. (2)

Animats (122034) | more than 13 years ago | (#749331)

Look at the "active CPU mask" in the log. CPU 7 is offline.

Re:Proof of Linux' scalability... (2)

imp (7585) | more than 13 years ago | (#749333)

With all due respect, the fact that it boots on a 31 CPU machine doesn't tell us a damn thing about how well it performs as a 31 CPU machine. What does the graph of performance vs number of CPUs look like? If you get the same level of performance at 16 and 31 CPUS, for example, it shows that Linux won't scale.


Until you can show a real-world benchmark for each step along the way from 1 -> 31 processors, I won't believe it will scale well. Something simple like building kernel would likely be graphable and show how well things scale. I'd build it once to preload the cache and then build it 10 times in a row, take the average, add a cpu and repeat.


I'm not saying that Linux doesn't scale. I'm also not saying that it does. I'm saying the mere fact that it booted on a 31 CPU machine means that it booted on a 31 processor machine and nothing more until more data is provided.

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

drendite (3) | more than 13 years ago | (#749335)

Like any of the slashdotters would use this machine for real work, anyway. They just want it so they could brag that they have more computing power.. that they don't actually use. Kinda like the guys who brag their car can go 200 mph when the speed limit only goes up to about 60 or 70.

Re:Why would you want to run Linux on this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#749337)

What has not been mentioned is that mechanisms exist to boot multiple OSs on one of these suckers. you can, for example, run the unix formerly known as OSF, linux (multiple distros if you wish) AND VMS _AT THE SAME TIME_ on the servers formerly known as Wildfire. So, if you have some apps that run only on linux, why not dedicate one or two processors to those while the others run Unix... that goes the same for if you have some legacy VMS stuff but want to keep up with some newer apps availible only on unix or linux.

And finally, the reason I like best... we run linux on it "Because It's Cool!"

-Too Lazy to Register

Re:One Question (2)

imp (7585) | more than 13 years ago | (#749338)

How do I get ROOT?

The same way that script kiddies do :-)

Just why does this matter (1)

sips (212702) | more than 13 years ago | (#749340)

This article is basically just someone bragging about his extremely expensive machine that I almost guarantee nobody on slashdot can even afford on a good salary.

Re:What happened today?? (2)

Cy Guy (56083) | more than 13 years ago | (#749343)

5) They needed to post something, ANYTHING, to use the DIGITAL logo before people forgot what it stood for.

Re:Now if only Linux could use more than 2-4 CPUs. (1)

mholve (1101) | more than 13 years ago | (#749344)

Right - I'm all with that.

But humor me here. How long has Linux been out and "developing" now?

Let's say I'm a big mover-and-shaker in the dot-com world and need a scalable, reliable, bullet proof solution NOW?

I thought so.

Re:If I do'd it, I get a whuppun...I DO'D IT! (1)

FeeDBaCK (42286) | more than 13 years ago | (#749347)

by the way... Alphas don't do much in the way of distributed.net keyrates. I ran d.net on an 8-way GS-140. It wasn't impressive at all. The quad p2-400 Xeon blew it away.

Re:Not so imp...what?? (1)

ndfa (71139) | more than 13 years ago | (#749350)

exactly what bug are you refering to ? ? i fail to see something wrong... its just BogoMips... and at 47K pretty nice bogus feeling :)

I know it can get the job, but can it do the job? (1)

mobydoby (144355) | more than 13 years ago | (#749353)

So when do we get to see how well Linux handles processes across those chips?

The power and the glory :) (1)

jiba_phantasmo (161278) | more than 13 years ago | (#749357)


SMP: Total of 31 processors activated (46170.90 BogoMIPS).
Who says Linux can't scale? Look at those bogomips!!! :)

Big Deal! (1)

mholve (1101) | more than 13 years ago | (#749360)

I'm sure it could run Digital UNIX long before Linux and post the same kind of results...

Same thing with Sun and their boxen...

Sheesh. "Hey look, Linux learned a new trick today everyone!"

Jesus H. Christ in a chicken basket! (4)

Kernel Monkey (28336) | more than 13 years ago | (#749363)

I think we should hold a fund-raiser in which people would pay $20 to be able to see this thing in the flesh. $100 if you want to actually touch it.

I'd be first in line :)
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>