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!

Rent A Bit Of Weta Digital

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the route-bits-through-mordor dept.

Lord of the Rings 210

An anonymous reader writes linking to this story at stuff.co.nz, excerpting: "Five hundred powerful computers used by Weta Digital to help create the special effects for the Lord of the Rings may be put up for hire.... The pizza-box sized IBM blade servers each incorporate dual 2.8 gigahertz Intel Xeon processors and 6 [gigabytes?] of memory." Update: 03/22 07:08 GMT by S : The linked story says 6 megabytes of memory, we don't believe 'em.

cancel ×

210 comments

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

what? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632122)

what?

6MB? (2, Interesting)

Biogenesis (670772) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632124)

Shoulden't that read 6GB?

Re:6MB? (0, Troll)

Biogenesis (670772) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632142)

Heh, didn't think that'd go unchecked for long...

Re:6MB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632181)

I don't think so. A 32 bit pointer can only address 4 GB, 2^32.

Re:6MB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632259)

Look up the acronym "PAE".

Re:6MB? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632338)

"Plants, Animals and the Environment"

What the?!

Re:6MB? (1)

tankdilla (652987) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632208)

How much RAM can they put in those Xeon boards? I'm assuming they figured 6 GB per board would be sufficient, but how much RAM would be the max for the board?

Re:6MB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632334)

1.75921860444E13 Mega Bytes would be the amount it could physically address using 64bit addressing.

Imagine (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632125)

A beowulf .. oh wait ...

Re:Imagine (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632216)

Would it be a beowulf of beowulfs...

A metabeowulf?

A superbeowulf?

An Uberbeowulf?

The cat's pajamas?

or just fun?

Re:Imagine (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632346)

Well I never metabeowulf I didn't like.

Re:Imagine (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632494)

Imagine having a GIANT LOOSE BOWEL MOVEMENT on these servers. Plugged in!!

I am sure a lot of the excretion would go right into the air vents on them, and hit 120mm cooling fans and such.

Some of the excretion would undoubtably settle on warm components and begin to release odors in an accelerated fashion.

I would think it would be a good option for visitors, tourists, and you get a bumper sticker or pin that says "I crapped at WETA!"

fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632127)

biatch

what? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632179)

what? ...
what? ...
What? ...
WHAT? ...
WHAT?!?! [slashdot.org]

Bi-atch!

huh? (0, Redundant)

FS1 (636716) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632131)

The pizza-box sized IBM blade servers each incorporate dual 2.8 gigahertz Intel Xeon processors and 6 megabytes of memory."

umm check your stats there

really? (-1)

0x54524F4C4C (712971) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632133)


6 megabytes of memory

Less than my 15-years-old 386 machine?

best poll EVER! (-1, Offtopic)

PollTroll (764214) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632136)

Who's the hottest editor?

Cum Taco [calcgames.org]
Michael [calcgames.org]
Timothy [calcgames.org]
CowboyNeal [calcgames.org]
Other [calcgames.org]

You mean 6 Gigabytes right..... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632137)

You mean 6 Gigabytes right.....

Lamenting the fall of pizzabox desktops (1, Offtopic)

baryon351 (626717) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632138)

Mildly off topic, but I seriously miss good pizzabox desktop boxes. Something simple, plain, fast, and with room for a couple of PCI slots on a riser card.

The world needs more of them

Re:Lamenting the fall of pizzabox desktops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632154)

Oh how I loved my old Performa 6115. Damn nice pizza box. Only 1 Nubus slot though. :(

Re:Lamenting the fall of pizzabox desktops (1)

baryon351 (626717) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632175)

Curiously that's one of the machines I was thinking of when I posted, along with sun's lovely ones.

Re:Lamenting the fall of pizzabox desktops (1)

sTalking_Goat (670565) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632185)

I don't miss em at all. Ever try to overclock a Radeon 9600Pro? Where would I fit this thing [3dcool.com]

Re:Lamenting the fall of pizzabox desktops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632534)

When I think pizza box, I think of things like the sun sparcstation one for example... couple of sbus slots, and actually the same form factor as a pizzabox.

What you describe is perhaps the NTX... something that went out of fasion when the slot 1s came into being, but slightly more practical now that we no longer do big arse cartrages. They are perfectly fine if all you need are two PCI slots and don't mind doing without agp.

Cost? (5, Funny)

nb caffeine (448698) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632145)

What would this cost? Do they charge something like cpu/hours or the like? Will the average person have the ability to rent some clock cycles? I just want something that will be able to run doom3 when it comes out.

Re:Cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632184)

It will be incredible...a blazing-fast 2 seconds-per-frame running over VNC!

Re:Cost? (1)

nb caffeine (448698) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632196)

Im sure it looked cool on the server though...

Pizza-delivery! (5, Funny)

The_Ace666 (755363) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632146)

Now where can I find a pizza-delivery company to get one of these babies delivered to my door?

Re:Pizza-delivery! (5, Funny)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632232)

Either way, they'll be hot! (pun intended)

Re:Pizza-delivery! (2, Funny)

T-Kir (597145) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632342)

...and if they don't deliver within a certain time, then hopefully you'll get it for free! :)

Re:Pizza-delivery! (1)

idttau (764220) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632385)

i believe i speak for others as well when i say that i'd spend more money on a pizza in a box than something with 6MB memory...

6 megabytes? (-1, Redundant)

PovRayMan (31900) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632149)

Bill Gates said it best...

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." --Bill Gates, 1981

Re:6 megabytes? (0, Offtopic)

nb caffeine (448698) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632177)

ugh. enough already. shouldnt it be:
1: 640k
2: ???
3: PROFIT!

or
imagine a beowulf cluster of 640k!
or
litigous 640k
or
goat640k.cx
or
in soviet russia, 640k needs no more than you!

maybe i read slashdot too much, but i just see the same crap moderated "funny" all the time...

Re:6 megabytes? (4, Informative)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632183)

Bill Gates said it best...

No he didn't.

Re:6 megabytes? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632203)

and look at windows xp's minimum system requirements....

Wow (4, Funny)

KU_Fletch (678324) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632150)

A whole 6 megabytes of memory?! Way to beat up my 486.

Re:Wow (1)

yletelpmoc (763765) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632233)

Or my IBM PCjr, with the fully upgraded 128K ram. And an off topic tangent, a beowulf jr. cluster. Any takers?

Re:Wow (2, Funny)

xkenny13 (309849) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632267)

A whole 6 megabytes of memory?!

Yup!! It's amazing what you can accomplish once you get rid of all the bloatware.

Re:Wow (0)

Daleks (226923) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632311)

A whole 6 megabytes of memory?! Way to beat up my 486.

Of course it supports 6 MB of memory. It didn't say exactly or at most 6 MB. Oh no... I've turned into that annoying person at work that corrects everyone's grammar.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632351)

I've turned into that annoying person at work that corrects everyone's grammar.

The boss? Or the one that corrects veryone's grammar and gets it right?

I don't see why not. (2, Insightful)

torpor (458) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632371)

If you've got renderman set up to render to disk, and your disk arrays are pretty fast, I don't see any reason why these dedicated render machines shouldn't have only 6 megabytes of RAM per CPU.

okay, it doesn't make a -ton- of sense to render direct to disk, but maybe it can be done and not require so much RAM?

Wow, talk about capacity. (0, Redundant)

oGMo (379) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632151)

Six whole megabytes? That's like, ten times 640K, and everyone knows that's all anyone needs!

Did the article mean 6 gigabytes? Or a 6MB cache, or what?

Interesting combination isn't it? (1)

toesate (652111) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632285)

It would be interesting to hear out to anyone that might have really tried such a combination - Xeon with let say 8MB RAM(existence?)..

"It blazingly fast.. but it ran out of memory during bootup.. using kernel 1.2.."

Re:Wow, talk about capacity. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632496)

Read the title: "Rent A Bit Of Weta Digital" They're not renting whole bytes or megabytes. Hmm... I'd read the SLA before renting some CPU time...

[memory not included]

retirement.... (1, Funny)

AngstAndGuitar (732149) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632153)

this reminds me of this [despair.com] .

Update (5, Funny)

hlopez (220083) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632156)

Update: 03/22 07:08 GMT by S
-we don't believe 'YOU-

Wow! (1)

FS1 (636716) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632157)

Less than one minute after posting the story, and not proofreading it. There is an update correcting an obivious mistake. I'm surprised that you corrected it that quickly.

Re:Wow! (1)

Roman_(ajvvs) (722885) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632248)

if you proofread the update, you'd realise they're referencing the article...

But it goes to show how inherent assumptions and habit are made and what happens when they're broken. Noone assumes MB anymore...
Remember the days when 600 MHz was blazing fast? now people might say "0.6 GHz" just to be able to express speed on the same order of magnitude..

I'd like to run ray tracing real time on this (4, Interesting)

SexyKellyOsbourne (606860) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632158)

I'm rather tired of waiting for graphics to progress to the level they will be in in the year 2010 or so. I'd like to see these machines, which rendered Lord of the Rings, use their nearly unlimited processing power to let me play a game -- perhaps Half-Life or Quake 2 with a new rendering DLL -- to spit out 60fps of pure ray-traced bliss.

Or just fire up InTrace [intrace.com] with a scene of 1 billion polygons of a super-detailed scene of sunflowers, with multiple reflections and all the other goodies, and crank it to 1600x1200.

I can dream, can't I? :)

Re:I'd like to run ray tracing real time on this (1)

Shinglor (714132) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632361)

The latency would be too high for a real-time action game.

Re:I'd like to run ray tracing real time on this (5, Funny)

troon (724114) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632393)

I'm rather tired of waiting for graphics to progress to the level they will be in in the year 2010 or so.

Just give it six years or so, and you should see the improvements you are waiting for.

Woot! (2, Funny)

SillySnake (727102) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632161)

Finally a computer able to run the super-ulta-mega high detail Duke Nukem forever! Yes, that's right, the game is finished and just waiting for the computer graphics and processing worlds to catch up to it.. err, right? I mean.. Doom 3! err.. wait.. bah.. Never mind that Still, I would think that unless a company needed results very quickly a seti like application would be much cheaper. If the software guys can code one that can run on the company's network overnight or just at random downtime during the day, then the company ought to save a bunch of money. If they can make it pretty and flash like SETI, then other people might even use it. It just makes more sense to save money in a non-critical manor like that.

One thing to say... (5, Interesting)

linuxkrn (635044) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632165)

seti@home!

Re:One thing to say... (4, Funny)

MagicDude (727944) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632255)

No, we need something nerdier and more useless, like the biggest prime number ever [newscientist.com] .

Re:One thing to say... (5, Interesting)

CGP314 (672613) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632430)

folding@home

I used to run seti@home instead of folding@home, but then one day I realized I needed to switch. While finding extraterrestrial life would be the most important development in human history to date, the chances of finding it in my lifetime are very small.

On the other hand, the chances of my getting cancer or any of the other of the diseases folding@home works on is very great. Plus, if folding@home cures any of these diseases, it will extend my life and increase the chances that extraterrestrials will be found within my lifetime.


-Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]

Re:One thing to say... (1)

terremoto (679350) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632502)

>seti@home!

These are their WU totals for the last few days...

65818

69106

73928

and right now they're closing in on 5th place in New Zealand [berkeley.edu]

Nice (0, Troll)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632174)

While renting out unused machines is not even close to a new thing, it's the LoTR machines, so it's way cool here on /.

This is what all that "on demand" hype is about after all... *yawn*

but machines with that much memory in each aren't the norm, so it is a rather sweet cluster.

They're upgrading . . . (0, Flamebait)

Libraryman (721151) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632180)

to dual G5 Xserves!

Distributed.net... (4, Interesting)

rthille (8526) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632182)

Imagine distributed.net being a CPU co-op. They take problems from clients in need of a ton of CPU, farm it out to distributed.net members, and at the end of the month/year you get a small check for all the CPU cycles you spent helping solve problems.

Re:Distributed.net... (-1, Troll)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632190)

*laughs* that's sooooooo 1997...

see also: piles of dot-bombs

Re:Distributed.net... (3, Insightful)

SillySnake (727102) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632194)

A great idea in theory, but how would they track the amount of help that you did in a way that would be one hundred percent hack proof? I don't think you'd want to pay people to analyze every packet that you get back to make sure it's had whatever needed done, done to it. Granted, it would be possible to elimnate most unwanted results with a couple of filters, but when money becomes an issue the community will do what they can to get the most of it.

Re:Distributed.net... (2, Interesting)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632245)

Easy -- Make the 'money' be not real money, but a lack of ads/nagging.

Imagine getting prompted upon installing an application whether you want to A) pay B) have ads or C) donate cpu cycles.
This would then allow developers to make money off of their software without making it unusable due to ad annoyance (xfire, aim, most shareware)

Re:Distributed.net... (4, Funny)

bobthemonkey13 (215219) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632279)

Better yet, let's make a program that makes you pay, has ads, and forces you to donate CPU cycles.

We could call it KaZaA.

Re:Distributed.net... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632436)

What a cool business model.. Yeah.. if you could get kazaa for free if you donated a months worth of spare CPU cycles that'd well rock.

Mod parent up!

Re:Distributed.net... (5, Informative)

Motherfucking Shit (636021) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632282)

Imagine distributed.net being a CPU co-op. They take problems from clients in need of a ton of CPU, farm it out to distributed.net members, and at the end of the month/year you get a small check for all the CPU cycles you spent helping solve problems.
This was already tried, by a company called ProcessTree. The idea was that they'd sell your CPU cycles out and you'd get a cut. They also had it set up in a pyramid fashion, so that you also got an extra few cents for each person you referred to the program.

The best I could find was this mirror of the FAQ [multyportal.com] . Since ProcessTree.com now belongs to a domain poacher, I'm guessing they never did find a paying client...

6 megabytes (0, Redundant)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632213)

6 megabytes ought to be enough for anyone

Re: Rent A Bit of Weta Digital (-1, Redundant)

struckleberry (763320) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632228)

In Soviet Russia... Weta Digital rents a bit of YOU!

Mod parent up (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632303)

That's kind of funny.

Do people not get the reference? Or do they get it and are just sick of it? I'm sick of people modding me flamebait when I post jokes like this.

Re: Rent A Bit of Weta Digital (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632333)

Slashdot needs a -1: Tired Old Joke mod like I need to get laid.

Re: Rent A Bit of Weta Digital (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632352)

So you DON'T need to get laid.

I'm signing up right now! (4, Funny)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632240)

I'm going to re-fake the moon landing, but do it right this time! No numbers on rocks, no waving flag, or overlapped crosshairs.

I may have to re-release the Mars landing too, depending on how well they did...

Beagle was a great idea, btw. Spend the money and then oops! no mission to render. Sheer genius.

Re:I'm signing up right now! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632440)

We are sorry to inform you that all available capacity has been sold to George&Tony Inc. for their WMD [re]search project.

Sincerely,

Telecom&Weta

Maybe they're right (4, Interesting)

ctr2sprt (574731) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632265)

Update: 03/22 07:08 GMT by S: The linked story says 6 megabytes of memory, we don't believe 'em.
They might mean 6MB of L2 cache. I don't know what cache sizes are available for Xeons, but probably when you order 1000 CPUs at once Intel are willing to give you hard-to-find stuff.

Re:Maybe they're right (1)

Moonpie Madness (764217) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632286)

I suppose that's possible, but really. When you describe a box, the first two pieces of info are usually speed and memory. I mean, those are the two most important variables right? This is a typo, though perhaps the reaction is kinda overblown. It is amazing to me that we could use 6 gygabytes of ram... I can't even conceive of 640,000 pieces of info, much less millions of bits. It's crazy crazy stuff

Re:Maybe they're right (1)

hkroger (666340) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632383)

I sincerely don't think so. Ordering 1000 custom CPUs would be very expensive. 1000 pieces is rather small amount for customization.

Re:Maybe they're right (1)

samhain_tm (731049) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632539)

Yeah, but they are dual processor systems... 2000 pieces

Re:Maybe they're right (1)

Tore S B (711705) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632524)

Indeed, the Itanium machines at our university has 6MB L2. And the 9MB series is coming up soon.

Renderfarms online - old news (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632284)

Posting anon as I have an interest in some of these companies :
http://www.respower.com/ - 250+ machines (~500GHz), 250GB ram
http://www.rendercore.com/ - 700 machines
http://www.render-it.co.uk/ - 82 cpus (131GHz), 82GB ram)

The only 'interesting' thing here is that it's WETA's farm. Other than that, I doubt they offer the wide selection of software (lest they struck deals lately) not to mention field experience with 'oddball' files.

Good luck to them, though

One word. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632450)

Massive.

Now you can rent their software and pay them to run it for you on their cluster. None too shabby.

Maybe they can't make a crappy episode of Triping the Rift lowering expectations everywhere. I can't tell you how disappointing that is. But if you need an army of anything, they're probably the people to call.

Cool! (1)

xxx_Birdman_xxx (676056) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632288)

Some PCs, mostly older systems used to help create the first film in the trilogy, The Fellowship of the Ring, have been donated to a local school.

Those machines would still have to be pretty good, even if they are called 'older systems'.. Some of the local school geeks would love to think they are working on a machine that may have been used to create Gollum!

LAN Connection ? (5, Funny)

ultranova (717540) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632301)

Surely they used Token Ring to connect them ?

Re:LAN Connection ? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632313)

You try make funny.

You type Tolkien ring next time, you no type Token ring again.

You no funny man, no karma for you.

Re:LAN Connection ? (1)

renec (16822) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632341)

No, Tolkien Ring

Re:LAN Connection ? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632474)

That joke is so old that people get it even when you misspell the punch line.

Re:LAN Connection ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632543)

No, they lost their token in the ether

Nasty hobbits. They tricked us! Thieves! (5, Funny)

pariahdecss (534450) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632349)

Nasty fat hobbit probably sold the extra RAM to buy Twinkies(R)

Excuses, excuses (0)

rjch (544288) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632354)

The linked story says 6 megabytes of memory, we don't believe 'em.
Be careful, you might just give old Billy boy a way out of the comment that's been dogging him for years...

"No, no, I meant nobody would ever need more than 640 gigabytes of memory!!!"

Re:Excuses, excuses (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632504)

The time when we need in excess of 640 GB or RAM will be closer than you think. I give it 5 years absolute tops. Probably less.

6 Gigabytes on a 32bit CPU? (3, Interesting)

ProfessionalCookie (673314) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632392)

Correct me if I'm wrong here but aren't the Xeons currently 32 bit? Doesn't that mean they can't address more than 4 Gigs? I thought that's what the whole big deal was with 64 bit. Now maybe if they were G5s...

Re:6 Gigabytes on a 32bit CPU? (4, Informative)

Xpilot (117961) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632410)

Well, initially 32-bit Intel chips could only address 4GB's, but recently we have crazy shit like PAE that allows up to 16GB RAM to be installed and addressed by the OS that supports it, but applications can still only use 4GB at a time.

Re:6 Gigabytes on a 32bit CPU? (2, Informative)

bbrazil (729534) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632530)

PAE that allows up to 16GB RAM to be installed
Actually its 64Gb. Around the PII 4 extra bits were added to bring it to 36bits.
Of course its a bit faster to access 16Gb rather than 64Gb and faster againt access 4Gb for some PAE reason.

Re:6 Gigabytes on a 32bit CPU? (1)

Duty (731705) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632411)

IIRC, they can (using a hack that would make assembly programmers faint in horror, as usual) but no one process can use more then 4 gigs. Anyone know if this limit applies to different threads owned by the same process?

Re:6 Gigabytes on a 32bit CPU? (1)

gunix (547717) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632412)

Isn't there some feature in Xeon that makes them able to use 36 bit adressing?

Re:6 Gigabytes on a 32bit CPU? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632442)

"Intel(R) Extended Server Memory Architecture--expanded 36-bit memory support which allows operating systems and applications to utilize memory greater than 4 Gbytes" Intel [intel.com]

Sell 'em on e-bay (5, Funny)

GloomE (695185) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632398)

Wouldn't they make more by selling them as (framed) collector's items?
Blade 1 of 500: current bid $1(insert zeros here).

interconnect (5, Insightful)

painehope (580569) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632406)

the real killer is that there's quite a few industries that can't rent time on their cluster because the gigabit interconnect ( IBM blade chassis have a switch module internal to each chassis, and I don't think you can get any HSLL - high-speed, low-latency - network interconnect modules ( Myrinet, SCI, Quadrics, etc. ) for them ) has too high of a latency for their applications.

Bandwidth-wise they should be fine, as each chassis has at least four ports that could be trunked to a top-level switch w/ a beefy backplane ( I could tell you the # of ports per chassis if I was at work, as I've been messing w/ some of their blades lately ), giving a peak per-chassis bw of > 400 MB/sec.

Of course, I'm wondering how Weta got around it themselves, as I would think that rendering digital video is fairly heavy on inter-node communication. This would still be aswesome for web-servers or problems that are "embarassingly parallel".

Re:interconnect (5, Insightful)

2megs (8751) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632432)

Rendering digital video is about as parallel as compute loads get. Generally each frame can be an independent computation. For most ray-tracing algorithms, computing each pixel of each frame is fully parallelizable too.

The global AI things they did to have 10,000 troops all interacting together is obviously not quite so independent, but I'm willing to be the bulk of the compute load goes into creating pictures of those interactions, not the interactions themselves.

Re:interconnect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632538)

From what I understand, their application is "embarassingly parallel" so the interconnects between bladecenters doesnt really matter very much. They use Gigabit ESM's (Ethernet Switch Modules) in each Bladecentre and they are connected to a Foundry Backbone switch.

no reason to doubt 6GB (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8632422)

The IBM HS20 has 4 DIMM slots used in banks of 2. No reason to think 2x2GB and 2x1GB would not work.
Linux, FreeBSD or Windows 2000 AS would support PAE allowing an app to use close to 4GB, leaving 2 GB for OS kernel , so seems reasonable.

Ay one who doesent believe me check at crucial.com. I wont provide a URL but look for IBM, Bladecenter, HS20

The choice (0)

FraggedSquid (737869) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632510)

I'll have the one on the left.

STOP THAT 6MB LAME JOKES (4, Interesting)

robbyjo (315601) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632523)

Please...

This may be an old news, but the details of that machine is here [sgi.com] . That's some stuff to drool over. Some excerpts:

... provide a combination of 4TB of online storage and more than 20TB of nearline storage as a global storage repository ...

... create and manage up to 100TB of data ...

And now this machine is up for a rent. Here's [wetadigital.com] the company website.

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>