×

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!

96 Processors Under Your Desktop

Hemos posted more than 9 years ago | from the build-your-own-small-cluster dept.

Hardware 350

Roland Piquepaille writes "A small Santa Clara-based company, Orion Multisystems, today unveils a new concept in computing, 'cluster workstations.' In October, you'll be able to choose between a 12-processor unit for less than $10,000 or a 96-processor system for less than $100,000. These new systems are powered by Efficeon processor from Transmeta and are running Fedora Linux version 2.6.6. Apparently, this new company has friends in the industry. You already can read articles in CNET News.com ("A renaissance for the workstation?"), the New York Times ("A PC That Packs Real Power, and All Just for Me," free registration, permanent link) and the Wall Street Journal ("Orion Sees Gold in Moribund Workstations," paid registration). The company is targeting engineers, life scientists and movie animators. It's too early to know if the company can be successful, but I would certainly have to get one of these systems under my desk. In this overview, I've picked the essential details from the three stories mentioned above."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

350 comments

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10107894)

w00t w00t

Re:FP (1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107920)

I was about to post something insightful under my real account here but I then realized it was yet another boring blog entry from this pathetical homoquepaille loser so I am just posting something discouraging instead.

1st (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10107896)

ha ha ha

Cooling? (5, Interesting)

justinmc (710870) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107898)

Any ideas?

Re:Cooling? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10107923)

An ionic air fan strapped to the side?

Re:Cooling? (4, Insightful)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107969)

That was my first thought. I guess that's the point of going with Transmeta...

Re:Cooling? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10108068)

Exactly right. The Actius MM20 laptop from Sharp is only 2 pounds and less than an 0.8 of an inch thick. How? No cooling fan needed for the 1ghz efficeon.

Re:Cooling? (5, Informative)

evil_one666 (664331) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108054)

the transmeta chips used are specially developed to run at a low temperature. It is in fact this development alone which has enabled these "mini clusters" to now be manufactured

Re:Cooling? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108095)

a huge copper/aluminum plate/heatsink sitting on top of the cpu's and one big slow moving fan cooling that?

Re:Cooling? (5, Funny)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108181)

Cooling?
Any ideas?


I've got one!

96 processors on the motherboard,
96 processors on the motherboard,
take one down,
pass it around,
95 processors on the motherboard...

Dual 2.5GHZ (5, Funny)

Ziwcam (766621) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107901)

Great... by october my brand-new machine will be hopelessly out-of-date. I knew it would happen, but had no idea they'd usurp me by 94 processors.

Re:Dual 2.5GHZ (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Cow4rd (761685) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108028)

Dude, that Apple was out of date when you bought it. Compared to say, a much cheaper dual Opteron 250 setup.

PowerPC vs x86 flamewar... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10108033)

...in 3, 2, 1...

For a moment... (3, Interesting)

jkrise (535370) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107902)

I thought '96 processors under your desktop! That would be the Pentium at 133MHz!

Seriously, why 96? Why not 64 or 128?

-

Re:For a moment... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10107911)

64? who can do with ONLY 64 processors?? sheesh..

128? who the fuck needs 128 processors? you have to think in resonable proportions! sheeeeeesh..

Re:For a moment... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10107921)

Seriously, why 96? Why not 64 or 128?

Because 96 reversed is...

64 and 128 reversed don't have the same flavor

Re:For a moment... (1)

Asprin (545477) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107965)


96 = 64 + 32 and 12 = 8 + 4, so they kinda make sense, but kinda not. I, too, would love to know what oddball technological issue is forcing them to choose such unexpectedly weird processor arrangements.

Re:For a moment... (5, Insightful)

dreamt (14798) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107999)

I woiuld guess it is more a physicical issue. Processors are probalby arranged 3x4, and can fit that way into a 2 foot wide case to fit onto an "average" desk. Stacking these boards 8 high gets to a height that can fit under a desk.

Re:For a moment... (5, Insightful)

skaffen42 (579313) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108013)

Could be cost. 10K and 100K are nice round numbers.

I've realized that most strange tech descisions can usually be traced to some guy in sales...

Re:For a moment... (4, Insightful)

Peter La Casse (3992) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108088)

Seriously, why 96? Why not 64 or 128?

12 processors fit on one board, and 8 boards fit into the chassis they chose.

Re:For a moment... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10108115)

"In October, you'll be able to choose between a 12-processor unit for less than $10,000 or a 96-processor system"

Assuming the processor units have 12 processors each that would give up to 8 processor units.

Any more than that and you'll probably need a bigger desk, or a personal cooling unit at your desk.

Re:For a moment... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10108160)

64 processors should be enough for everyone.

Santa-Claus (2, Funny)

tentimestwenty (693290) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108185)

Am the only one who saw "A small Santa Claus-based company" I guess after seeing 96 processors under your desktop, that's what first came to mind.

Friends in the industry (5, Funny)

slutdot (207042) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107905)

Apparently, this new company has friends in the industry.

Apparently Slashdot is one of them

Re:Friends in the industry (5, Funny)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108145)

How much does one of these obvious ad posts cost anyway?

Please send pricing.

yeah but (4, Funny)

MalaclypseTheYounger (726934) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107907)

Can I run Doom 3 on it in maximum resolution mode?

Isn't there a Jay-Z song about this? (5, Funny)

schtum (166052) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108027)

If you're having lag problems, I feel bad for you son.
I got 96 processors and you got one!"

Re:yeah but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10108147)

Can I run Doom 3 on it in maximum resolution mode?

I don't think a cluster computer would help with Doom 3 as it doesn't take advantage of such an environment. You'd probably be better off buying the fast Intel or AMD chip you can find now. Not that it matters anyway, Doom 3 sucks IMHO. I had forgotten how dark and dingy they made it and it's even worse since you can't use a flashlight and your gun at the same time (apparently they never heard of mounting the flashlight on the gun). Multiplayer seems practically non-existent in the sense of comparing it to games like Battlefield 1942. How could they put out a game like Doom 3 with such crappy multiplayer support? I think it tops out at 4 players!!! WTF?

strange (2, Insightful)

ZenBased (593709) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107910)

why not get a huge server where more users can benefit from the processing powers? and what kind of videocard does this baby pack? that must give some great doom3 performance :)

Re:strange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10107943)

reading the specs it doesn't actually seem to have a graphics card! Only usb ports and cdrom.

Re:strange (5, Informative)

isaac (2852) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107979)

why not get a huge server where more users can benefit from the processing powers?

You could use these systems as such servers. The idea, though, is that these might be cheap enough to allocate to individuals.

and what kind of videocard does this baby pack?

No video card. These are just render/compute clusters in a box.

I'm impressed at the claimed 220W peak power consumption of the 12-node box, but wonder what kind of real computing performance it provides.

-Isaac

AMD instead of Transmeta? (3, Funny)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107915)

It'd be cool to have 12 high-end AMD processors instead of relatively slow Transmeta CPUs in this workstation. But I guess their total disspated heat will melt computer case :(

Re:AMD instead of Transmeta? (5, Funny)

QuickFox (311231) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108049)

It'd be cool to have 12 high-end AMD processors [...] heat will melt computer case

First you say it'd be cool, then it'd be hot ... Make up your mind!

Re:AMD instead of Transmeta? (1)

platos_beard (213740) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108066)

When AMD and Intel go dual-care relatively soon, I wouldn't be surprised if a dual processor/4-core AMD/Intel outperforms the 12 Efficeon's both per dollar and per watt.

Under my desktop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10107918)

Did I miss something? I thought this was 2004, not 1998.

Imagine (0, Offtopic)

Joecuba (736359) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107919)

Imagine a beowulf cluster of these!!!111!1!!!

Somebody hang the moderator! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10107974)

And burn the corpse!

Beware (-1, Offtopic)

LeGarcia (710519) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107930)

If all those rumors that Linux does not exist were true... you would be getting into some strange digital nirvana when the performance of a 12 uProc blazed in your face. No return after crossing that line.

Sounds nice, but (4, Interesting)

grunt107 (739510) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107932)

One thing perplexes me:
Chips on the same board communicate using Gigabit Ethernet, while board-to-board communication takes place on 10 Gigabit Ethernet.

Wouldn't same board communication be more frequent, hence needing the faster connection?
Better yet, why not 10GBe for both?

Re:Sounds nice, but (5, Informative)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108010)

More frequent yes. But there are more parts within one board, so each of them separately needs less bandwidth than all of them taken together. So, 1G carefully engineered/switched (so each part has 1G bandwidth, not 1G shared between all) is quite sufficient. But then, say, 100 parts need 1G bandwidth between each other and 100M bandwidth to the other board, each. Makes 10G of throughput between boards easily.

Re:Sounds nice, but (3, Insightful)

Xocet_00 (635069) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108011)

If I had to guess I'd say that the on-board communication would be switched, such that the chips can talk one to one at 1Gbit.

For chips on different boards to talk though they would need to squeeze their traffic down the same line as all the other chips trying to talk board to board. Hence the higher bandwidth?

Just a guess.

Re:Sounds nice, but (4, Insightful)

Dutch_Cap (532453) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108050)

"Wouldn't same board communication be more frequent, hence needing the faster connection?"

I guess it depends how you look at things. On the same board you have one processor talking to one other processor. Between boards, however, you have up to twelve processors talking to up to twelve other processors. So to me it makes sense to me to have more bandwidth between boards than internally on a board.

Re:Sounds nice, but (3, Interesting)

volsung (378) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108077)

There is probably one ethernet link between boards, so you need more bandwidth on it to allow multiple nodes on the same board to communicate off-board simultaneously. Since there are 12 nodes per board, 10 Gbps is almost enough to handle theoretical worst case.

Dunno why not 10 Gbps everywhere. If you maxed out the 400 MHz Hypertransport bus on the Efficeon, you could push out 1.5 GB/sec, which is just over 10 Gbps. I wonder how much that costs...

so how much?? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10107941)

Cince Roland Pickapale obviousally PAID someone at slashdot to accept his submissions so he can drive people to his insanely LAME blog designed only to sell ad's.

So Taco, how much? and where is the webpage that tells us how much for each story I can be guarenteed to have posted to slashdot??

96?!?! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10107949)

I dont want that thing running anywhere close to my crotch. .. course this is slashdot so i'm sure most wont care :)

Colin Hunter... (4, Interesting)

mantera (685223) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107951)


I really admire this guy; although the ventures he took part in haven't gone anywhere financially, they were pretty cool. Transmeta, OQO, and now this! Go Colin Hunter!

Man..... (2, Funny)

bhaynes (777260) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107955)

With the power requirements on this thing, the case will be half PSU. I can see the warning on the case now 'Do not place in carpeted areas.' I bet the electro-static discharge would make you sterile faster than the speed of rubbing socks.

What the Orion employees do with them, SERIOUSLY (3, Funny)

Provocateur (133110) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107962)

I'd like to see what the employees do with them after hours...

"Gotta work late today, honey. Oh, sorry, is this the Pizza place? Could you please hold one sec?"

"Gotta work late again today, honey..."

96 procs? (1)

d4rkmoon (749223) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107980)

Man.... I truly hope that they don't make it Longhorn compat at some point. That would definitely be scary. It would at least fit the requirements of the dual/quad procs.

Licensing Fees (1)

Techtoucian (779127) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108138)

But can you imagine the licensing fees for using Windows on this many processors? I bet it wouldn't be too cheap. :-D

Mr. Bucket, put your balls in my mouth. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10107982)

The first to get their balls into Mr. Bucket wins!

Fedora 2.6.6? (4, Insightful)

Halo- (175936) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107983)

I hate being this guy, but this is a big pet peeve.

Fedora currently is either Core 1 or Core 2. 2.6.6 is a kernel version number.

Kernel version != Distribution

Saying "Fedora 2.6.6" is like saying a car is a "Ford 2.4 liter".

Re:Fedora 2.6.6? (4, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108044)

This is a problem at the Slashdot end rather than with Orion - either from the original submitter or the editos. Checking out the product descriptions [orionmulti.com] on Orion Multisystems' site reveals the following (and other interesting specs):
  • Based on Fedora Core 2
  • Linux kernel 2.6.6 with performance optimized Orion drivers

So I think they know the difference at least... :)

Ford & 2.4 L engines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10108189)

The only 2.4L engine Ford manufactures is, to my knowledge, the diesel engine used in the Ford Transit van, but the Transit isn't sold in the US. So the engine may not do a spectacular job identifying the vehicle, but it could also be a lot worse.

Is there a 2.4 liter Ford engine that I'm not aware of?

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to download the internet on the CD Disk with my American Online after I finish installing a new RAM Memory.

Just Imagine. . . (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10107985)

You could have a beowulf cluster of beowulf clusters . . . *sigh*

Whee! (4, Interesting)

thephotoman (791574) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107987)

96 processors running Fedora? I want one!

Actually, I would be willing to bet that the university I'm at could use a few of these things. After all, we've got undergrads doing BLAST database work, just to teach them about it. Having been through that hell myself, it'd be a lot easier if you didn't have to have a cluster to do the work by computer. For those who don't know, BLAST is a genetic sequencing database that allows for comparison with an extracted gene (retrived through polymerase chain reaction) with a known, sequenced gene in their database.

space problem @#$!*& (1)

phreakv6 (760152) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107994)

....but I would certainly have to get one of these systems
under my desk. seriously,.. where do u intend to put ur foot ?

Seems Very steep (4, Insightful)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 9 years ago | (#10107995)

The pricing seems quite steep. 800/cpu for 12 configuration, 1000+/cpu for the 96 cpu configuration. I can see why they have friends in the industry the prospect of selling 10 to 100 times the equipment per seat must have marketing departments salivating.

If your'e going to spend that kind of money though theres alllready solutions that will provide that level of processing cheaper.

There is also the utilization isssue, programming tasks hardly require 96 processors except on compile and link. You don't need 96 processors to wait for a keystroke. The same holds true in applications. You don't need cpu's waiting for a user to decide what to do.

Economies of scale (0, Redundant)

msgmonkey (599753) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108036)

How many of these units do you think they're going to sell? These things don't design themselves and the company has to cover these costs. Of course getting the pricing right will dictate sales.

Re:Seems Very steep (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10108058)

I doubt compiling would profit from 96 CPUs - after all it's pretty IO bound. But the raytracing crowd might love it.

Re:Seems Very steep (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108059)

Except for power consumption and subsequent electricity and air conditioning costs.

Clusters aren't cheap, even if they don't cost as much as a Cray.

Re:Seems Very steep (1)

Anonymous Cow4rd (761685) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108080)

That's what I was thinking. At that price, you're looking at around 11 Opteron 250 processors or 13 Xeon 3.2 Ghz EMT64 chips.

Or, for the price consious that 21 Opteron 246's.

How do these Transmeta chips compare to an Opteron 250?

Or course, there are more components than just the CPU's. Like multiple motherboards. But still...

Re:Seems Very steep (4, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108102)

I'm sure you're right, these aren't going to sell in huge numbers. As for the utilization issue, though, I don't think it's for programmers. Like the summary says, think animators - nothing is easier to paralellize than rendering frames in an animation.

Personally, I think most of these will still end up as servers for groups of people instead of individual "workstations." But the logistics of a normal 100-workstation cluster are pretty bad - a large server room, enormous air conditioning unit, a massive power supply, and lots of cabling to be done. This new thing can probably share an existing server room with other computers.

Granted, it's probably just a bit smaller and more power efficient than previous "blade" servers, but maybe presenting it as something brand new is a good marketing angle.

Neat idea. (1)

Canthros (5769) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108021)

If this does well over the long term, I suppose I'll be looking at an n-cluster computing system in ten or fifteen years, when the technology percolates out to the masses.

a positive Slashdot effect? (4, Funny)

cybergrue (696844) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108031)

OK, apparently, someone took the "Imagine a beowulf cluster of these" a bit too seriously.
Way to go!

Mass storage I/O? (1)

leandrod (17766) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108042)

SCSI, SATA or what?

Re:Mass storage I/O? (4, Informative)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108105)

To save you having to RTFA and check out the product descriptions [orionmulti.com], the say "1 to 96 high performance 2.5" disk drives, 30-80GB capacity, 7.8TB max capacity on deskside". You can probably infer from the 2.5" that they are using notebook harddrives which are most likely EIDE - at least I haven't seen any SATA ones yet, although they can't be too far away.

You should probably check out the product description anyway though; there are some quite interesting hardware design decisions in there!

Don't these guys read /. ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10108046)

No matter what the actual news is about you will always have more then enough posters on /. that freely share their expertise with us and tell us again and again that Linux is _not_ ready for the desktop.

Putting 96 CPUs under hood simply will not change this fact!!!11!!11one!

96? That's it? (4, Funny)

keiferb (267153) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108048)

I've got well over a hundred in the box under my desk. Unfortunately, it's just that. A box of over 100 CPUs, mostly Pentiums/Pentium IIs.

Does it run Windows? (0)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108063)

If so, queue megadeth's "99 ways to die" ha ha!
Seriously, though, I bet Strongbad can check the hell out of his email with that!

Interconnect & SSI Required (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10108071)

The interconnect is tcp/ip over ethernet, just think of the the overhead it generates on the poor transmeta CPU. Actually, quite strange given that each efficieon has its own Hyper Transport Bus they could have been much clever about it and on the way also use Single System Image OS - maybe Mosix. As I see it there is not much usability for the staff, unless you like noice and heat beneath your table...

I see this as a natural evolution for clustering (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10108074)

Now we just need to see a company come up with a complete LAN solution where every machine acts as a SETI@Home type client in a cluster, giving SMB's a supercomputer that works while it's various workstations comprising it are idling.

Price/Perfomance (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10108081)

So what's the benefit? How does this compare to a dual opeteron or something similar? If a dual opteron can do something like 12G flops for $2.5K, what can this thing do with 12 processors at $10K...?

Re:Price/Perfomance (1)

bhaynes (777260) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108178)

The story itself mentioned Lawrence Livermore (a Dept. of Energy Lab, which I'll use as an example), which have SEVERAL of the fastest supercomputers in existance. Just what are they going to do with it? If they have a simulation to run, why would they bother running it on a machine like this when they have they own/manage their own supercomputers?

The only real benefit to a machine like this (as far as I can see), is to mid-sized engineering firms. Even then, they would be reluctant to drop $10k on a single computer, let alone the staff required to manage it(and port software utilities to it).

Performance? (1)

mwfolsom (234049) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108094)

Anybody have a clue how the performance of an Efficeon processor stacks up against Xenon's, Opterons, & etc-

Having a 12 p box is great but if its performance is a bit less or the same as a 4k$ 2p Opteron box what's the "real world" advantage?

MMO's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10108106)

This kinda stuff (if it were cheaper) could pave the way for half-decent mmo's, assuming net speeds could hurry up and level out (I can't stand seeing people in the world with 56k's and others with 20mb net).

Piquepaille Slashdot spam must stop ! (5, Informative)

wsapplegate (210233) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108130)

Warning ! Warning ! Warning ! Warning ! Warning !

Attention, a public service announcement follows : do not read the "overview" touted by Mr. Piquepaille. This person constantly spams Slashdot [slashdot.org], trying to get traffic to his site on Radio Userland (which I'm not linking to, for obvious reasons). Do NOT go to his overview, you're only giving traffic to a spammer. See these [slashdot.org] recurring [slashdot.org] complaints [slashdot.org], for instance. Not to mention he steals the images he puts on his blog and sometimes also spews bullshit [slashdot.org] for lack of knowing better. This must stop. In any way, do not fall for the spam, and do not provide him any more traffic. Please also warn fellow readers when you see one of his self-serving posts.

And now, a personal message (warning : verbal abuse in foreign language follows) : Roland, tu nous les brises. Va te pendre, hé Ducon !

[disclaimer : I'm not commenting on whether the subject is interesting, or not. But the kind of astroturfing the submitter engages in regularly is just wrong]

Warning ! Warning ! Warning ! Warning ! Warning !

Reliability (3, Insightful)

lachlan76 (770870) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108132)

This wouldn't be as reliable as having 96/48/24/12 computers with 1/2/4/8 processors each, which would be important for things like movie animation.

And besides for movies, we already know to just fit as many Opterons in a rack as possible. What advantage does this have (except for cost)?

Piquepaille Ripping Off Again (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10108144)

How many stories a week does this frigging guy get into Slashdot?

His business plan:
1) Sell Ad Space on "News" Website
2) Shovel In Content From Online Articles
3) Submit To Slashdot Daily
4) Tout "Slashdot Coverage" To Advertises
5) Profit!

And looking at his site, it works fine and dandy indeed.

Then again, is he just doing a service to us?

96 Problems... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10108156)

...If you've got kernel problems, I feel for you son,
I've got 96 problems but my chips ain't one....

It's a cluster (1)

haggar (72771) | more than 9 years ago | (#10108176)

That means, not so many applications will benefit from it. In fact, I'd say that 90% of desktop apps will run better on a 2 GHz single-cpu computer than on this one. In fact, a 2 or 4 CPU (non-cluster) computer would offer better performance for a larger number of apps, than any cluster. Software that takes advantage of clustered configurations has to be specifically written for them.

Oracle RAC is one, but I can't think of any other popular title that would, expecially not for the desktop.

Obligatory /. joke (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10108179)

Imagine a Beo.. uhh. Never mind.

With so many GigE connections inside that box, I guess Sun's "the network is the computer" finally came through.

On the other hand, this is also "the computer is the cluster" at the same time.

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...