Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

LLNL/RPI Supercomputer Smashes Simulation Speed Record

timothy posted about a year ago | from the in-a-world-of-make-believe dept.

Stats 79

Lank writes "A team of computer scientists from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have managed to coordinate nearly 2 million cores to achieve a blistering 504 billion events per second, over 40 times faster than the previous record. This result was achieved on Sequoia, a 120-rack IBM Blue Gene/Q normally used to run classified nuclear simulations. Note: I am a co-author of the coming paper to appear in PADS 2013."

cancel ×

79 comments

rPi is different from RPI (5, Funny)

stewsters (1406737) | about a year ago | (#43614835)

Was i the only one who thought for a second that this was about a raspberry pi cluster?

Re:rPi is different from RPI (2, Funny)

DrData99 (916924) | about a year ago | (#43614913)

Yes.

Re:rPi is different from RPI (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43614969)

No

Re:rPi is different from RPI (2)

TheAngryMob (49125) | about a year ago | (#43615021)

No. For us old-timers, RPI stands for Rockwell Protocol Interface.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Rockwell+Protocol+Interface [thefreedictionary.com]

POS Modems....

Re:rPi is different from RPI (1)

Orne (144925) | about a year ago | (#43615451)

I guess you have a different definition of old-timers, since it was founded in 1824 and became an official Institute in 1832.

Re:rPi is different from RPI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43615701)

They didn't have acronyms back in the 19th century, silly.

Re:rPi is different from RPI (2)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year ago | (#43615867)

They didn't have acronyms back in the 19th century, silly.

I always thought that acronyms were invented by IBM.

They used so many of them that the same 3 letters often applied to 5 different products. At the same time.

Re:rPi is different from RPI (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year ago | (#43624423)

They didn't have acronyms back in the 19th century, silly.

I always thought that acronyms were invented by IBM.

They used so many of them that the same 3 letters often applied to 5 different products. At the same time.

See? They already had quantum computing!

Re:rPi is different from RPI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43616587)

And it invented the @ symbol! You tribute RPI everytime you send an email!

+++ATH0 (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about a year ago | (#43617593)

+++ATH0 +++ATH0 +++ATH0 If you're still here, you're not on an imitation Rockwell modem.

Re: +++ATH0 (1)

madprof (4723) | about a year ago | (#43617883)

This isn't funny and it doesn't work like that. I would say try again, but please don't bother.

Re:rPi is different from RPI (1)

Narcocide (102829) | about a year ago | (#43615095)

Slashdot's comment filter kept me from responding "No"

Re:rPi is different from RPI (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | about a year ago | (#43615383)

Another vote for Raspberry Pi.
More than a little disappointed. :( Where is my Credit crad? I think I need to order some Raspberries.

Re:rPi is different from RPI (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#43616487)

No you weren't, although I was wondering how many millions of rPI they needed to achieve this.

Re:rPi is different from RPI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43619229)

Was i the only one who thought for a second that this was about a raspberry pi cluster?

No, like you I also thought about the Raspberry Pi, but then I took a misleading-article-title to the knee...

meh this joke get's old fast, should have made a joke about a beowulf cluster of RPi's instead

Only Warp 2.7? (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year ago | (#43614845)

I was already running Warp 3 in 1995! :-)
(OS/2 Warp 3, to be exact)

Re:Only Warp 2.7? (2)

olsmeister (1488789) | about a year ago | (#43614917)

At present, we are now at {Warp Speed 2.7}. It will be nearly 150 years before we expect to reach {Warp Speed} 10.0.

And then, Delta Quadrant here we come!

Simulation of what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43614867)

So new super computer managed to "achieve a blistering 504 billion events per second". All the summery says is the computer normally does "classified nuclear simulations". So These events are what? What is is simulating?

Re:Simulation of what? (4, Funny)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about a year ago | (#43614981)

No, those events are Who. Simulating is How. What is calculated.

Re:Simulation of what? (1)

RoverDaddy (869116) | about a year ago | (#43621805)

Third base.

Re:Simulation of what? (3, Funny)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#43615051)

Cats.

Re:Simulation of what? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year ago | (#43615213)

The computer is performing a musical?

Re:Simulation of what? (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#43615405)

Cats in space =)

Re:Simulation of what? (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about a year ago | (#43616419)

Miss Piggy Does Not Like. It's Pigs in Space. Hyyuhh!

Re:Simulation of what? (1)

jameshofo (1454841) | about a year ago | (#43615835)

A liberal coming to terms with building a new nuclear power plant in the US

Re:Simulation of what? (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43616547)

So new super computer managed to "achieve a blistering 504 billion events per second". All the summery says is the computer normally does "classified nuclear simulations". So These events are what? What is is simulating?

The summary said the "coordinated 2 million cores", without saying where they were, or why they needed two labs from opposite sides of the country to do so. The summary seems long on self promotion and short on details if you ask me.

Re: Simulation of what? (3, Informative)

DJefferson (1228878) | about a year ago | (#43617475)

The simulation was a well-known parallel discrete event benchmark called PHold. It is not a model of any particular physical system, but is more of a stress and scalability test for the simulator, in this case the ROSS simulator developed at RPI. PHold has particularly fine-grained events, which stresses the synchronization mechanism known as Time Warp, implemented ROSS with support for reverse computation. It stresses the scalability of the Global Virtual Time commitment mechanism (used for I/O, error detection, storage management, and termination detection). And because PHold has no locality in its communication, it greatly stresses the underlying communication layer, MPI. The general idea is that a simulator that can achieve high performance on PHold at very large parallel scale can achieve high performance on just about any realistic, load balanced discrete event simulation at that scale.

The Bomb (0)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year ago | (#43614923)

Now, if only we found better uses for top supercomputers than assuring our WMD supply is always in tip-top shape for mass murder.

Re: The Bomb (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43615033)

It let's us get by with fewer bombs. Fewer bombs means less chances for mistakes. And I am very glad that the superpower states cannot fight each other directly because indirect war is bad enough.

Re: The Bomb (1)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year ago | (#43615127)

The US military budget is about as much as the next 10 biggest national military budgets *combined.* The US isn't one player in a delicate balance of superpowers; it is a massive unilateral force, driven by greed and paranoia to utterly irrational levels of military spending. No matter how much the US has, war hawks clamor for more. "Fewer bombs" is a sick joke in the context of the ridiculous number of bombs the US has. Scrap 90% of our military, and we'd still be an untouchable superpower.

Re: The Bomb (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43615191)

While that is true (or true-ish; there is no reason to believe the PRC's public budget numbers), the US spends its defense money so inefficiently that it doesn't have as much strength as the next ten national militarizes combined, or anywhere close to that.

Re: The Bomb (1)

jameshofo (1454841) | about a year ago | (#43615889)

Its just that our stupidity is smarter than theirs!

Re: The Bomb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43616201)

The U.S. and Europe control way more than half of the worlds 70 Trillion dollar a year economic output/ money flow. It is shared wealth. Efficiency has nothing to do with it. When you have controlling interest, you CONTROL it.
There are perhaps 2,000 people on "the list"
Carlos Slim, and Warren Buffett are not on the list. (They do get invited to parties).
The President of the United States is not on "the list". The President of the United States does what he is told.
This is people like Barrack Obama, and George Bush we are talking about, so save you outrage ok?
George Senior originally wasn't on the list, but he saw the list. So he was able to get himself and his whole family powerful positions in government.
fall of Rome to French revolution to American revolution. The controllers have nowhere left to run. You can have enough money. You can never have enough bombs.

Re: The Bomb (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year ago | (#43618487)

Spooky factoid: "the list" is an anagram of "illuminati".

Laugh all you like, the guy's onto something.

Re: The Bomb (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year ago | (#43615933)

The US military budget is about as much as the next 10 biggest national military budgets *combined.* The US isn't one player in a delicate balance of superpowers; it is a massive unilateral force, driven by greed and paranoia to utterly irrational levels of military spending. No matter how much the US has, war hawks clamor for more. "Fewer bombs" is a sick joke in the context of the ridiculous number of bombs the US has. Scrap 90% of our military, and we'd still be an untouchable superpower.

I think that the sad truth is that the primary purpose of the military budget is to serve as a welfare program whereby congresscritters can hand out jobs to their constituents and pretend that it's not "wasteful gummint spending" because it's FREEDOM, DAMMIT!

An awful lot of money gets spent on horribly expensive military toys that the Pentagon claims not to want or need just because someone in Congress could get facilities opened back home to make and/or service them. You could replace quite a few bridges - and the Interstate highways connecting them - for the price of a single Osprey, if I have my numbers right.

Re: The Bomb (1)

bedeutungslos (686392) | about a year ago | (#43617371)

We came to this state by basically unilaterally assuming responsibility for the defense of Europe. It was complicated, and had to do with the question of German rearmament after WWII (and, in no small measure, Vietnam before the US was really involved). But the short answer for why the US spends so much on defense is that we have chosen to carry all our allies. Could Taiwan support ten carriers at sea? No... but will they need ten carriers to wage an effective campaign if the day ever comes? Yes. And we have chosen to commit to providing them. It's not like we don't get anything from Taiwan in return. Or ROK... or back in the day, FRG and the rest of Western Europe. Part of all that is maintaining a capable nuclear arsenal, and we use computer simulations rather than live tests to assure the efficacy of our stockpile. I think that's a perfectly good reason to buy lots of computers and employ lots of scientists. I guess you've got some specific, well-funded, noble alternative to retask all these resources on?

Re: The Bomb (1)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year ago | (#43617525)

I guess you've got some specific, well-funded, noble alternative to retask all these resources on?

Well, nuclear anti-proliferation is a pretty nice start, which just requires enough funding to yank the plug out of the wall. But, since you've already presumably got funding for operation and research personnel for the bomb-maintenance tasks, you could just re-task that along with the computer (not designing bombs is a good start in itself). I don't currently have any personal pet projects that need a supercomputer, but perhaps I could refer you to the poster "aussie.virologist" further down the thread noting this could be handy for viral simulations. Researching new antiviral drugs (and releasing the results free to the world so anyone can manufacture them) seems like a pretty "noble alternative" to assuring we can initiate global nuclear holocaust at a minute's notice.

Re: The Bomb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43617585)

Nuclear weapons are not paid for out of the DOD budget. They are a DOE funded.

Re:The Bomb (1)

fiordhraoi (1097731) | about a year ago | (#43615581)

Maybe we could program them to scour the internet for comments that take a completely unrelated tangent to the original article, for the purposes of expounding on whatever irrelevant social agenda/issue the commentator has stuck up his behind? And then it could automatically delete them.

Re:The Bomb (1)

nateb (59324) | about a year ago | (#43617765)

Commentator is not a word. HTH. HAND.

Re:The Bomb (1)

ratbag (65209) | about a year ago | (#43618119)

From Oxford Dictionary of English:

commentator |ËkÉ'mÉ(TM)nteÉtÉ(TM)|
noun
a person who comments on events or on a text.
â a person who commentates on a sports match or other event.

Commenter may have been more appropriate in the circumstances, I'll grant you.

Re:The Bomb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43616847)

I'm with you. It seems every few months livermore or some other US military institute is "setting new records" for speed used by computers for "classified" work. Wonder what it costs to keep replacing these machines with faster ones (at taxpayer expense), and when the race will end? The fact its working on "classified" work but yet the computer, its location and capabilities are published so proudly is not lost on me.

Re:The Bomb (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year ago | (#43618761)

You mean, like assuring our WMD supply is always in tip-top shape for deterring mass murder?

Because that's what nukes have been doing for the last 60 years.

can you put the paper online? (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#43614945)

Note: I am a co-author of the coming paper [acm-sigsim-pads.org] to appear in PADS 2013 [acm-sigsim-pads.org] .

I clicked hoping to read the paper, but the actual paper doesn't seem to be posted, only the abstract. The ACM copyright policy explicitly allows [acm.org] authors to "Post the Accepted Version of the Work on ... the Author's home page", so there is no legal barrier to the authors putting a PDF online. Doing so would of course increase readership of the paper, so ought to benefit everyone.

Re:can you put the paper online? (5, Informative)

Lank (19922) | about a year ago | (#43615205)

I didn't realize that it was acceptable to post it before the conference even happened. But you're right so here it is [rpi.edu] .

Re:can you put the paper online? (2)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#43615241)

Thanks! My own policy is that I don't post draft or submitted versions, but once something is finalized (camera-ready final copy as it's going to appear in the proceedings), I'll post the PDF online.

One plus side for those who care about such things is that it'll get into Google Scholar faster—GS is surprisingly good at picking these PDFs up in its crawls and figuring out how to index them.

Re:can you put the paper online? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43616147)

Near top of second column: "Renssleaer"

Re:can you put the paper online? (1)

Darth Snowshoe (1434515) | about a year ago | (#43619285)

Knowledge and Thoroughness, yo.

keys still safe from brute force (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43615019)

So that is 2**39 keys per second. To brute force an 80 bit key (full key space) is 2 ** 41 seconds. That is something like 64000 years.

Re:keys still safe from brute force (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#43615207)

This is a simulation, events. The summary doesn't say what the events are, but probably more complicated than just testing a key.

Besides, brute-forcing a key wouldn't be best done on general-purpose or even GPU. An ASIC would be the fastest, and you can be confident such chips would be easily within the capability of any major and a lot of not-to-major governments. So you're looking at a chip that can do, as a back-of-the-envelope, a key every cycle and clocked at 1.2GHz - standard for a lot of systems, as a sort of performance-per-watt peak. Times 64 cores per chip, times eight chips per PCI-e card, times eight processor cards per 2U case, times 42/3=14 systems per rack (leave space for cooling and switch), that's 1.2 * 64 * 8 * 8 * 14 = 68812 GK/s per rack.

Re:keys still safe from brute force (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43615443)

,that's 1.2 * 64 * 8 * 8 * 14 = 68812 GK/s per rack.

That gives you about 2**40 keys/(rack*second)
If you bought 1000 racks (of this highly specialized hardware) you are still looking at a 32 year wait.
I think that the keys are probably still safe.

Re:keys still safe from brute force (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43616631)

I think that the keys are probably still safe.

If this was the government you were talking about, I'd agree, the government can't do anything right.
This is not the government. This is the NSA. If they need to, they will buy 100,000 racks.
Bluffdale isn't being built to study the weather. (well, no supercomputer is, but that's another conspiracy theory)
Your keys are not safe.

Re:keys still safe from brute force (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43615211)

This article is about discrete event simulation, not something as embarrassingly easy to paralleled as brute-forcing a block cipher.

Fast money (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43615359)

I wonder how much money you could make mining bitcoins on that for one minute.

'You earn $400,000 by using this computer for 12 seconds.'

Re:Fast money (1)

burning-toast (925667) | about a year ago | (#43617311)

And then at the end of the month you get an electric (+cooling / water) bill for $400,000. Doh!

- Toast

Re:Fast money (1)

jkflying (2190798) | about a year ago | (#43618397)

Yes, but in the mean time you earn the interest on the $400k. Just make sure you mine on the first day of the month and pay the bill on the last.

Re:Fast money (2)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year ago | (#43618507)

It's good to see that you've thought this through properly.

LLNL Supercomputer, not RPI (1)

1729 (581437) | about a year ago | (#43615403)

Headline is incorrect: Sequoia is at LLNL, not RPI.

Re:LLNL Supercomputer, not RPI (1)

1729 (581437) | about a year ago | (#43616935)

And now the headline has been updated to "LLNL/RPI Supercomputer...", which is STILL INCORRECT. Sequoia is a DOE computer at LLNL:

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

You must be new too slashdot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43617605)

Every summary that has any thing to do with IBM and it Power Architecture making some type of positive mile-stone will be misleading and ambiguous. The only times that they will provide more specific information about IBM and it Power architecture is when an x86 HPC builder such as cray, dell, or hp reaches some benchmark that was set by the Power architecture. Note: no mention of the processor be used in the Blue Gene/Q is the 18 core 64-bit Power A2 which is manufactured using a 32nm process while consuming only about 50-watts of power.

This could be good... (4, Interesting)

aussie.virologist (1429001) | about a year ago | (#43615527)

I'd be interested in seeing if this system could run our full Poliovirus simulations (consisting of around 3.5 million atoms). I've run our simulations on the BlueGene/Q at VLSCI using 32,768 cores (65,536 threads) and have been getting a very respectable 11.2 nanoseconds per day of simulation data using NAMD. Some data on our full virus simulations can be found here... (VIDRL supercomputer simulation page). [vidrl.org.au] Hey Lank, maybe you can help me figure out a way to crack the millisecond mark for our full-virus sims??? Great work and cheers from down under :-)

Re:This could be good... (2)

DJefferson (1228878) | about a year ago | (#43617091)

I would think that the macroscopic behavior of 3.5 million atoms in (poly)crystals or in a fluid or plasma states are within the capability of Sequoia. That's about 2 atoms per core and per GB of RAM. But the complex dynamics of proteins, DNA, RNA, and any other complex polymers that comprise the polio virus interacting with, say, a cell membrane, are still probably out of reach for accurate calculation in a reasonable amount of time.

Re:This could be good... (2)

aussie.virologist (1429001) | about a year ago | (#43617305)

Agreed, at this point we are looking at virus dynamics in response to drug binding events and gross alterations in conformational structure in response to significant changes in temperature and ionic content. So for these simulations, the longer the better. I dream of a day when we can model complex host cell interactions and hopefully I will a grey bearded old man still full of enthusiasm when these sort of simulations are considered "run of the mill". Your work helps to keep me excited about the future of HPC and how it can benefit not only my research, but humanity's understanding of the world as a whole. Cheers.

Re:This could be good... (1)

ratbag (65209) | about a year ago | (#43617983)

At the risk of getting all mushy and sentimental - thank you aussie.virologist, and your ilk, for doing something worthwhile with all these processor cycles available to the world.

Re:This could be good... (1)

jkflying (2190798) | about a year ago | (#43618227)

I find this topic extremely interesting, and it is a field I could see myself getting involved in, however my background is undergrad elec/mech with my MSc. in robotics/mapping/AI. I've also done a ton of simulation work via Robocode [robowiki.net] . What kind of background topics would I need to still learn to do this kind of work? I'm guessing quantum physics and chemistry along with some more hardcore comp-sci.

Re:This could be good... (2)

aussie.virologist (1429001) | about a year ago | (#43618555)

Hey thanks "ratbag" for your kind words. The work that Barnes et al. are doing is so important for researchers like us. It opens the door for us to answer questions in a manner that even 5 years ago was considered "ambitious" to say the least. I am very lucky to be in a position where I have access to resources that allow me to explore new ways of answering some very old questions about how viruses behave, with the added bonus that we may hopefully be able to contribute to making the world just a little bit better. Fingers-crossed.

"jkflying" I started off by working in electronics engineering when I left school, funnily enough I was running a company with some friends designing and building robotics systems, mainly focusing in animatronics. I wanted to start using my robotics background to work in the development of prosthetic limbs, but ended up changing the focus of my undergrad from anatomy and physiology to pathology, specifically microbiology with a lot of biochemistry thrown in. My post-grad was in computational biology. I actually started doing the simulation work after playing around with the tutorials on the VMD/NAMD website at the University of Illinois. I would recommend doing them, it's great nerdy fun and it gets you thinking about the different ways that you apply the techniques.

Have a great day:)

THIS FP FOR GNAa? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43615645)

or make loud noises niggerness? And they're gone Came of OpenBSD versus slings are limited, show that *BSD has 7000 users of get tough. I hope by the politickers are She had taken shower Don't just be a cock-sucking and exciting; people's faces at Addresses will result of a quarrel by fundamental The project or make loud noises feel an obligation An arduous BUWLA, or BSD OF AMERICA) is the How it was supposed bunch of retarded Hot on the heels of More stable BitTorrent) Second, Already aware, *BSD people's faces at Wash off hands sales and so on, and reports and DOG THAT IT IS. IT Survival prospects it. Its mission is practical purposes problems that I've are attending a you join today! Are you GAY engineering project during play, this

So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43615693)

How well does quake run on it?

Finally a hope for RPI students (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43615711)

Now we male RPI students can finally have a chance at deciphering the algorithm of how to attract women!

So how many bitcoins could it mine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43616001)

Cool, how many bitcoins do you think this thing could mine in a day?

Re:So how many bitcoins could it mine? (1)

Freddybear (1805256) | about a year ago | (#43616237)

Not enough to pay the electric bill.

Not that impressive - just running a benchmark (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43616379)

This experiment didn't perform any useful computation - they just ran PHOLD, a benchmark that sends messages between nodes in a random pattern. It's a benchmark that's specifically tailored to perform well with the Time Warp synchronization algorithm for parallel discrete event simulation. Although Time Warp performs great in theory, it relies on rolling back program state when it detects a synchronization error, and is notoriously difficult to implement in practice for large simulations.

Furthermore, these big machines are going to be used mostly for continuous (i.e. physics) simulations; this test was a discrete event simulation. Keep your eyes peeled for the winner of the Bellman-Ford prize, which is awarded to the highest sustained supercomputer throughput *when working on a real science problem*.

Re: Not that impressive - just running a benchmark (2)

DJefferson (1228878) | about a year ago | (#43617565)

I have to disagree. PHold was not designed to run well under Time Warp. It was designed as a stress test for any parallel discrete event simulator, whether based on Time Warp or not, and in particular originally to compare optimistic to conservative synchronization algorithms. Also, Sequoia is much less biased toward regular geometry continuum simulations that other world class supercomputers. It has no GPUs, for example. Machines of this class will be used more and more in the future for discrete simulations such as network models, or agent-based models, or for huge data problems, or for mixed continuous-discrete models such as of the power grid.

what OS please? (1)

softcoder (252233) | about a year ago | (#43616437)

and the operating system it runs is?

Re:what OS please? (4, Informative)

DJefferson (1228878) | about a year ago | (#43616601)

It runs a custom IBM OS specifically designed for Blue Gene/Q. It proveds an API very similar to Linux, but with some restrictions, e.g. static limits on threads, no process forking, and custom MPI messaging instead of a TCP/IP stack.

It was an LLNL supercomputer, not an RPI supercomp (4, Informative)

DJefferson (1228878) | about a year ago | (#43616537)

The title to this piece is wrong. The supercomputer in question was Sequoia, the Blue Gene/Q supercomputer located at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Some preliminary work was done on a smaller RPI BG/Q machine, however. (I am a coauthor of the paper.)

Subsidy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43617207)

They've been doing the same thing for decades, looking after the same nuclear stockpile, it hasn't changed, their job hasn't changed. They don't simulate anything new that needs a supercomputer of that power, because they've been doing it with far less powerful computers for decades.

This is just a subsidy to the US computer industry, disguised as 'classified' work.

John... (1)

FireXtol (1262832) | about a year ago | (#43617319)

Gustafson would be proud.

Go Rensselaer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43624257)

makes me proud to be a graduate of RPI :)

Check for New 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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...