×

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!

Army Contractor To Build A 1566 Xserve Cluster

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the army-of-a-quite-a-bunch-actually dept.

OS X 465

olePigeon (Wik) writes "MacCentral has an interesting article on a new computer cluster. From the article: 'Apple Computer Inc. will announce on Monday the sale of 1566 dual processor 1U rack-mount 64-bit Xserve G5 servers to COLSA Corp., which will be used to build what is expected to be one of the fastest supercomputers in the world. The US$5.8 million cluster will be used to model the complex aero-thermodynamics of hypersonic flight for the U.S. Army.'" alset_tech was one of the many readers to point to CNET's version of the story.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

465 comments

Forget it. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491224)

Ignore this story, the previous one [slashdot.org] is about 500 times more important.

True purpose (-1, Flamebait)

CmdrMooCow (213594) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491233)

With a system THAT powerful, Im sure it won't simply be doing just that, particularly with the US draft nearing readiness.

Re:True purpose (3, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491365)

Implementing the draft doesn't require number-crunching, it requires I/O bandwidth to run database engines.

-jcr

Re:True purpose (0, Offtopic)

b17bmbr (608864) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491436)

ther is no chance of reinstating the draft. one, the public is not supportive of it. two, there is no need. we will never have a million men in the field again. third, the army doesn't want it. long time ago, it used to damn near impossible to get out, now, it's not too hard. they classify you as unfit for military life, and say have a nice life. look at what the army is doing in iraq. those aren't conscripts. even if you think bush is satan, what we are doing has never been possible, nor accomplished before. and conscripts won't do that.

the often overlooked issue in abu ghraib is that they were reservists and some civi contractors. the army and air force have been doing this for some time now. farming things out to reservists and civilians. there will be no draft. we need 2 more divisions. those can accomplishged within normal recruitment.

Re:True purpose (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491491)

Then why the two bills [americanfreepress.net] in front of the House and Senate having to do with the draft?

Why the Army? (4, Interesting)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491239)

Isn't hypersonic flight research better suited to the Air Force?

Re:Why the Army? (5, Funny)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491282)

well, you know, they saw this spaceshipone on tv tonight and thought that hey, "we want one of those too".

or possibly "wtf how does that thing fly??".

Air Force == Army (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491287)

Won't you agree? Same motives and same objective. Right?

Artillery shells, rockets, bullets... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491327)

And other things that go boom.

They pretty much all go pretty fast through the atmosphere.

Re:Why the Army? (4, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491334)

Not everything that flys is an aircraft. Think bombs, not planes.

Re:Why the Army? (5, Informative)

Moofie (22272) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491503)

Not a lot of bombs that fly hypersonic.

Tank and artillery shells, on the other hand...

Re:Why the Army? (3, Funny)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491534)

Not yet, but they will ;->

Re:Why the Army? (4, Interesting)

Moofie (22272) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491590)

Not if they're carried by Army aircraft.

The Army is not allowed to operate armed, fixed-wing aircraft. And if you can figure out how to get a helicopter to go hypersonic, then the Airwolf designers want to hire you.

Re:Why the Army? (2, Informative)

Conossuer (649474) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491354)

This will more than likely be used for R&D with regards to rockets, from anti air craft to ICBMs.

Re:Why the Army? (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491369)

Hmm...Air Force has the ICBMs, too. SAC-Peace is our profession (war is our trade).

Re:Why the Army? (3, Funny)

andreMA (643885) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491422)

SAC-Peace is our profession (war is our trade).
I was stationed at HQ SAC (Offutt AFB) in the early 80's and we always said:
  • "Peace is our profession... war is just a hobby.

Re:Why the Army? (2, Funny)

mlk (18543) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491506)

When I was in the TA (Weekenders), we had a motto very like that "Drinking is our profession, *hick* Mmugh... *hick* somethingorother... your round"

Re:Why the Army? (4, Interesting)

Fortunato_NC (736786) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491370)

Manned aircraft aren't the only things that move faster than the speed of sound. In fact, since the pilot is now the limiting factor in most aircraft designs, the Army may have more use than the Air Force for hypersonic simulations - for SAMs and Patriot-type interceptor missiles that will have a flight envelope that is largely unexplored since an unmanned machine can withstand g-forces that would cause a pilot to blackout or worse.

Re:Why the Army? (4, Interesting)

almaon (252555) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491473)

It's to simulate something that can be loosly described as an anti-anti-missile. (like a patriot that hunts other patriot missiles)

US Army Space & Missile Command is around the corner after all.

Re:Why the Army? (1)

e03179 (578506) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491528)

Not everything that flies in our military belongs to the Air Force. AMRDEC = Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering center. If it's aviation-related or missile-related, it gets researched, developed, or engineered there. Think about Patriot missiles, Blackhawk helicopters, UAV's and bombs. In today's joint force initiative, R,D, and E from AMRDEC gets shared around the US Military and eventually (in one way or the other) the world.

http://www.redstone.army.mil/amrdec/ [army.mil]
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/12/28/rocket.ci ty/ [cnn.com]

Re:Why the Army? (1)

dbirchall (191839) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491551)

Aside from the kinds of missiles, anti-missiles and anti-anti-missile-missiles or whatever that other people have mentioned, the Army may be interested in other small hypersonic projectiles. Like, for example, kinetic energy weapons designed to penetrate armor. Or railguns. Or... whatever. :)

Re:Why the Army? (1, Interesting)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491574)

Two words...Starship Troopers...Others have mentioned hypersonic modelling for artillery shells or rockets, but imagine a platoon of troopers doing a near orbital drop from around 100km up. How'd they get there? Well with the hypersonic suborbital ballistic troop transport of course! Imagine a wing of these getting troops and equipment over any place on the globe in an hour or two.

Re:Why the Army? (1)

angrist (787928) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491580)

I'm currently interning at an Army ARDEC base and I wish i could reply with more substance..... but, there are quite a few reasons the Army is interested in hypersonic flight. A tank round can exit a tank at well over 1400m/s

Only $5.8 Million? I Want One (4, Funny)

powera (644300) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491247)

Screw atmospheric calculations or modeling atmospheric flight. I want to see the frame rate for Duke Nukem Forever on that one.

What, Duke Nukem Forever still isn't out yet? Hey, maybe such a computer could create Duke Nukem Forever from scratch so I could play it.

Re:Only $5.8 Million? I Want One (3, Funny)

lewp (95638) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491536)

I think I could have made Duke Nukem Forever by now. No need for a supercomputer.

I wonder.... (-1, Troll)

WeekendKruzr (562383) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491248)

what OS it will run? If it's anything other than some form of distributed OSX then maybe calling this an Apple supercomputer isn't so accurate considering that Apple is just a re-brander of IBM's designs & chips.

Re:I wonder.... (1)

andreMA (643885) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491285)

The zdnet version I read earlier said it'd run OS X, at least initially, but they might explore running Red Hat or Yellowdog.

Re:I wonder.... (4, Interesting)

green pizza (159161) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491456)

The zdnet version I read earlier said it'd run OS X, at least initially, but they might explore running Red Hat or Yellowdog.

I have a feeling that as more time goes on, more and more Apple-based clusters will use OS X. Apple continues to optimize the OS. They also continue to add remote administration features (both GUI and command line) while at the same time keeping the BSD-ness of OS X as pure as possible. (OS X is based on NeXTstep and OPENSTEP, so it does have some oddities when compared to "pure" 4.4BSD or Free/Open/Net BSD).

There are also some Apple software cluster technologies (such as Xgrid) but I'm not sure if they're hardcore enough for something of this magnitude. Apple has mainly been aiming their cluster software and marketing towards the small-scale (10 to 100 notes) research groups.

Re:I wonder.... (4, Informative)

fmorgan (235244) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491307)

That's not true. The CPU is IBM's but the I/O controllers and other chips are all Apple made.

check this InfoWorld comparison of Opteron systems with the XserveG5,

http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/06/18/25FE64 bi ts_1.html

This just might meet the system requirements... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491258)

for America's Army!

Better then real life testing (1)

Wasteofspace (777087) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491264)

Glad to hear that the Military are going towards simulations to test their new fangled gadgets rather than catapulting chickens and sending poor test pilots on flights that are most likely going to make them sterile (or worse) :)

Re:Better then real life testing (4, Insightful)

BigFire (13822) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491499)

Well, sometimes, the only way to know something, is to do it.

Imagine a beowulf cluster of... (-1, Offtopic)

hillens (719050) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491275)

My name is George, I'm unemployed, and I live with my parents.

But how fast will it copy a 17meg file? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491276)

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.

Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Re:But how fast will it copy a 17meg file? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491399)

Pfft like you're gonna hear that from them. At most you'll get a few death threats, but never an intelligent reason.

Apple hardware is leading the pack (1)

Sour Protein Supreme (762207) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491608)

Just look at

http://www.apple.com/xserve/cluster/wgcluster.html [apple.com] and try to tell me Apple is producing shit hardware.

Maybe the reason there is so much Apple stuff on /. lately is becuase at this moment they are making the coolest stuff available in the computing world bar none, and /. editors *might* be able to tell when a company has turned itself around and react accordingly with increased coverage of thats company's offerings??

Or do you think they should still be pissing down a rope at Apples products of 3 or 4 years ago, like the asshats who give lame outdated reasons to bash Apple. Wake up. Things are different now.

/. editors are getting this - some of you other people need to.

costs? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491281)

Sure the computers only costs $5.8 million, but how much will the screwdrivers cost they use to install everything?

I don't follow the numbers (4, Informative)

laird (2705) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491291)

This sounds like a killer system, but I don't follow the performance numbers.

The 1655 CPU cluster is expected to deliver 25 Tflops, while the Virginia Tech machine, with 1,100 CPU's (if I remember properly) is rated at 10 Tflops. What else is different? Are they using a different interconnect? Clever programmers to get closer to peak? Or is it something silly like a journalist switching between peak and measured performance, or between computers and CPU's (assuming dual G5 Xserves)? Or is the G5 Xserve really _that_ much faster than the G5 desktop measures VA Tech was benchmarked with? I _like_ that idea...

Re:I don't follow the numbers (4, Informative)

hattig (47930) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491349)

Each machine is dual processor.

VT used non-ECC machines, so safeguards took up some of the processing power.

Current XServes use ECC memory, so that should provide more overall computing power and provide a higher final score.

Different interconnect can also have a greater effect.

And finally, yeah, I reckon that this could be peak results. I remember VT had a peak of aroun 19TFlops? I don't remember the exact details.

Re:I don't follow the numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491371)

I don't think there are any exact details about VT. It sounded like they put the cluster together, ran some benchmarketing for Apple, and then tore it down again.

Re:I don't follow the numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491517)

But ECC RAM is slower anyhow. If the memory is hardware cheching, those checks take clock time, and if your application is already memory bound, you're screwed either way....

Unless, of course, it takes less time to run the job again--to check against.

Re:I don't follow the numbers (2, Insightful)

mrklin (608689) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491357)

The 1655 CPU cluster is expected to deliver 25 Tflops, while the Virginia Tech machine, with 1,100 CPU's (if I remember properly) is rated at 10 Tflops. What else is different? Are they using a different interconnect?

Had you read the article you would have known that thr Army machine is connected using standard gigabit ehternet whereas the Big Mac used Infiniband.

Since this is Slashdot you are par for the course.

Re:I don't follow the numbers (4, Informative)

andreMA (643885) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491367)

I blieve the 25 Tflop figure is a typo. I've read 15Tflop elsewhere

And they're also using plain gigabit ethernet for interconnects, not Infiniband, supposedly because the applications they plan to run don't require a lot of I/O bandwidth.

Just imagine... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491296)

...a 1566 Xserve cluster of those!

Awesome! (4, Funny)

wiresquire (457486) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491321)

1566 X Server cluster? That should get some decent FPS.

Ohhhh. XServe. My bad.

Re:Awesome! (-1, Troll)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491487)

Silly rabbit, games aren't for Macs.

On the other hand, it's worth pointing out that it's the US Military - a 1566 XServe cluster won't get you decent FPS if you're only willing to shell out $40 for a video card.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491635)

No but it probably really help out America's Army hosting.

Hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491325)

i used to find it funny when someone wanted to hack the gibson.

now there may be an actual unix cluster worthy of intrusion.

*drool*

Torn between... (4, Funny)

jabex (320163) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491351)

my love for Apple and my hatred for using technology for violence.

Oh screw it, that cluster is gonna be awesome! Forget imagining a Beowulf cluster... imagine your frame rate in Doom III!

First.
20fps.
In Doom III.
Evar!

Re:Torn between... (4, Insightful)

Moofie (22272) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491524)

The only solution to a violent world is to be better at violence than your neighbors.

There are zero societies on Earth that do not hew to this axiom.

Defense $$$ (5, Informative)

kwishot (453761) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491356)

"US$5.8 million"

I'm a grunt in the USMC (former computer geek...who would have figured?)
Anyways... I'm about to go *back* to Iraq in September.
The high brass has some f*ed up priorities some times.... the army has $5.8mil to contract out *research* to some company for technology what.... 10-15 years away at the minimum?
Meanwhile the Marine Corps is scraping nickles and dimes to get us basic equipment the army has had for most of a decade.
Hell, when we go to the field to train, we often have to yell "bang! bang!" because we don't get enough (or any) blank rounds for training.
Imagine if they took just ONE Osprey off the project..... maybe then I wouldn't have a hand-me-down-from-the-army m16a2 (does the army use them anymore?)

Re:Defense $$$ (2, Informative)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491400)

When I was over in Saudi, for Desert Storm, we had the original M-16's issued to us, with no forward assist. You had one shot and then a rather fragile baseball bat. We also had our .38 Special revolvers. I guess we could shoot ourselves if we were overrun. Gotta' love life in the Air Force Reserves.

$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust (4, Insightful)

green pizza (159161) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491437)

>> "US$5.8 million"

$5.8 M is absolute peanuts in terms of US Military budgets. You can't even buy replacement engines for a KC-135 (of which there are hundreds in service for various tasks) for $5.8M.

This purchase is segment of a drop in the bucket. It won't even make a dent on the balance sheet. Cutbacks and low funding in other areas is a result of the net picture (stemming from policy and tradition...)

Just be glad they didn't buy $58.0 M worth of Cray X1 or SGI Altix gear.

Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust (3, Insightful)

kwishot (453761) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491543)

$5.8m may be "peanuts" (and I am well aware of the fact) .... but if it were that simple .... why don't I have bullets? Why is the kevlar helmet I wear to combat the same one marines wore twenty-five years ago?

It's a political playground much larger than I can try to imagine...I'm just asking the simple question of where our priorities are.

Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491645)

"I'm just asking the simple question of where our priorities are."

25 years ago, the same marines would have been bitching that they had a copper pot on their head and where is that kevlar helmet that was promised.

25 years from now, maybe forces won't be put in so much risk because techology that is being developed today keeps folks out of danger.

Sometimes you have to sacrific the day to make certain tommorow is protected. Yeah it sucks...there are actual people that are being harmed by it, but at the same time you signed up for the bullshit. You knew that the budget wasn't there 10 years ago and its not going to be there 10 years from now. I work for a public entity...I bitch about it all the f'n time...but I know what I do is valuable for others and maybe one of the kids I works with might make something of himself. It pays nothing and the administration generally hates the folks like me that gets shit done regardless of the politics. Its the same thing everywhere -- you just elected to do the same job but with bullets wizzing past your head.

I commend you for defending the country -- or at least theoretically defending the country if we didn't have such a corrupt gov't. At least Iraq is good live fire practice for when some real danger threatens the US. Regardless of the current political nightmare -- you are serving your country and doing the job the most of the rest of us wouldn't or couldn't.

Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust (5, Informative)

Jim McCoy (3961) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491646)

I think that the reason you don't have any good equipment is because the USMC and the USN blew their allowance on a wasted IT upgrade from EDS. You know, that 7 _BILLION_ dollar contract which has already triggered SEC investigations for fraud.

Want to bitch about not having bullets? Look to your own leadership and stop whining about how the Army is going to spend its budget.

Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491648)

Pockets of the rich, the politicians & big business? I'm just guessing, but I'm thinking that's where the priorities lay.

Otherwise the richest 1% wouldn't be getting 51% of Bush's tax cut by 2010.

Just the facts sir.

I personally can't wait for the military coup in the USA in 2012 when Hilary gets elected and the forces say "Hell NO!"

Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491642)

Can you expand on your comment about Altix? My department is about to make a purchase decision and an Altix machine will be in the mix (agains a p690 and something from HP).

Other countries can be worse (1)

mr_tap (693311) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491548)

The general impression is that the US military has the biggest bucket of money in the world.

My old man was in the Australian Army (30 yrs ago though), and he certainly implied that the equipment that the equipment issued to the US guys in his day beat the crap out of the stuff the Aussies got.

From examples in the parent post, the money is not always flowing down to the guys at the front anymore.

Re:Defense $$$ (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491560)

Man, at least you might get the A2. My term in the Louisiana National Guard got me shared TA-50 gear (we actually had to share) and i think the exact same 1911 Colt my dad used in 1964....

Nothing? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491358)

apparently /. doesn't think that beheading a human and sharing the act with the world is stuff that matters. Of course, I don't want /. to turn into a political forum by any means, but the fact that gruesome executions are being streamed about the world is certainly a subject I think worthy of /. coverage.

Have you seen either execution? Why? What's the impact? What are the motives behind those that film/dessiminate it? I'd like to have a /. poll on that - or dare I say it, an ask slashdot?

Steve Blowjobs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491360)

Will give the first Anonymous Coward to frist post under this a handjob.

Re:Steve Blowjobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491374)

handjob please

Re:Steve Blowjobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491420)

You do not fail it!!

Oh... sorry AC. I'm afraid he wont be able to pay up. He's still finishing off the mac cabal while they mod down any bad comments regarding apple.

But... (-1, Flamebait)

keefey (571438) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491383)

Will it still only have one mouse button? Sorry.

Not too many mice used with rack servers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491523)

Xserves are 1U backroom server machines.

That'll be a damn pretty thermodynamic simulator (5, Funny)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491401)

"Physics computations and weapons simulations so good looking, you're going to want to lick them." - Steve Jobs
"Uh, we'd advise against that sir." - Army colonel
"But he SAID I could lick them! Ooh, red, yellow and green WMD icons!" - G. W. Bush

Re:That'll be a damn pretty thermodynamic simulato (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491592)

"'But he SAID I could lick them! Ooh, red, yellow and green WMD icons!' - G. W. Bush"

I realize this is just a joke, but it's totally out-of-synch with Bush's character. Bush does not ask anybody for permission to do anything. He is not easily distracted. He does not show excitement.

I'm as liberal and anti-Bush as anyone, but your joke doesn't work for me.

That's about 9 terahertz (3, Funny)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491402)

If you need me I'll be off in the corner, sobbing over my 0.533 gigahertz G4.

Re:That's about 9 terahertz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491426)

I find it funny when Mac users try to tell me that 2 x 2 GHz G5 = 4 GHz. Trying to explain to them otherwise results in them telling you that Apple 0wnz!11!1!! and that Steve J0bs is G0d!1!1!`~!~1

Sorry bud, it ain't 9 THz.

Re:That's about 9 terahertz (1)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491498)

Sorry, let me restate that with the proper tags:
<MATH TYPE="bullshit">That's about 9 terahertz</MATH>
Yes, I realize that's not actually how it works. Jeez. Smoke yourself a joint or something.

Re:That's about 9 terahertz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491647)

How are we supposed to know if you are one of the rare smart Mac users or one of the teaming masses of idiots polluting the Internet with thoughtless mac advocacy?

Re:That's about 9 terahertz (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491427)

I just bumped my b/w G3 up to 450MHz G4. Woot. Now I'm playing with power.

Re:That's about 9 terahertz (1)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491519)

don't be cheap...spend about 350 on a 1.25 GHZ G4 and plop it in there.

Re:That's about 9 terahertz (1)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491561)

I'm holding out for dual 1ghz G4s that I can afford. Don't try to reason with me, I've got my heart set on duals as my next upgrade.

The Steve "Rim" Jobs Cluster (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491460)

Steve "Rim" Jobs was inspired by my cluster. My fine cluster of dingleberries [m-w.com]

Is this the same thing... (5, Interesting)

This is outrageous! (745631) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491472)

that croquer [croquer.free.fr] was talking about in April? Translation:

(Translation:

2004-04-07
- Reasons of the G5 delay

(...) The new G5s are not yet announced and available because a customer is buying the entire output: U.S. governmental agencies have decided that from June 2005, no sensible data will hosted on Windows machines any more. Too many security holes and risks. They ordered 80,000 G5 xServe and Powermacs from Apple.

2004-04-08 - G5 delay (continued)

Around 70 U9 (cf. below) have been ordered by large goverment agencies, like NSA... About ten institutional laboratories already received the supercomputer, equipped with 1024 G5 processors @ 2.6 GHz. That already makes over 10,000 G5, a major part of IBM's production d'IBM => shortage.

The U9 project will officially be announced next fall in a version equipped with PPC975 @ 3 GHz, available to the wealthy (about 3 M$ per unit).)

form factor... (4, Interesting)

da5idnetlimit.com (410908) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491493)

After the article about the renderfarm, I was asking myself why people didn't use the blade for factor to build renderfarms and clusters...

I know there aren't available for mac, but I seem to remember Opterons and Xeon blades were the hot topic some month ago, with dual opteron blades and all...

any reason not to use them blades to build a cluster, each blade bay connected to all other, creating a (sic) beowulf or mosix cluster of some sort ?

Re:form factor... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491657)

I've got two clusters built out of blades. Sadly they are no longer powerful enough to rank on the top 500. /me sobs...

well not really. oh well. Someone want to loan me $$$ to get me back on the list? I need infrastructure charges factored in as well, A/C, power, etc.

3132 processors (4, Funny)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491576)

...But only one mouse button.

I sure as hell hope Steve Jobs threw in an iPod and a BMW to go with it. :P

CowboyNeal Handjobs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9491602)

Only -1 Mod Points!
GET YOURS NOW!!

1556 ???? (4, Insightful)

IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491621)

Not sure if this is a stupid question - but why 1556. It seems like a rather odd number. Is it budget or does this number of nodes work?

the age of skynet may be nigh (4, Interesting)

kylemonger (686302) | more than 9 years ago | (#9491639)

As the price of processing power keeps dropping these clusters are getting closer to the magical 100Tflop mark, which is what Ray Kurzweil and others speculate is required to run a human-level AI . Maybe we should start worrying about the computing projects that military isn't announcing.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...