Mark Hahn wrote:
Where would people on this list place the credit for HPC going
mainstream? If I had to pick one source, which is unfair to do, it would
I believe there is just one source, perfectly fair: cheap hardware.
Cheap and powerful hardware. COTS hardware was/is on a power curve
(power delivered to applications) that non-COTS technologies could not
match. Economies and customer demands of scale can do surprising things
to capabilities and focus.
The "ah-ha" moment for me was some time in 97 or 98 when I ran my old
molecular dynamics code on a Pentium II or III (don't remember
precisely), and it was within a factor of 2 in performance of the big
RISC boxes I used, which cost far more than 10x more. Then the
informatics codes around the 1999 time frame were faster on the Pentia
than the RISC boxes.
Cheaper and faster. This combination rarely loses.
I don't think any of the software is all that wonderful, or has it
changed that much over the years. and the user doesn't
really care anyway about, for instance, MPI.
or, for that matter, whether the compute node runs linux or windows.
On the contrary, I think (at least RGB has convinced me) that end users
*do* care if costs scale linearly with number of processors. This
provides sometimes significant barriers to them adopting more
computational power. Costs in this case include acquisition and
maintenance. If you set up some sort of diskless booting via
Warewulf/Perceus/..., or highly simplified install via Rocks, or use a
Scyld-like SSI-type model, the maintenance costs are going to be low in
general. If you use something that requires a license per node, and
additional costs due to security requirements, then your costs will
likely scale linearly per node, and the maintenance costs will also
scale like this.
We know lots of users that stop at smaller clusters, not due to the cost
and complexity of setting them up. Rather, they stop at particular
sizes due almost entirely to the cost of the application software per
seat. Most end users (at least in the commercial world) buy clusters to
run pre-existing codes. Most ISVs like deploying to fixed "supportable"
configurations. They also like it when a customer has a fixed budget,
that more of the budget is spent with them rather than the linear scale
products.
Customers don't really care about the OS on the machine. They just care
whether or not it will work well, how much it is going to cost them, and
what the support issues will be. Its not what it is, its what you do
with it.
--
Joseph Landman, Ph.D
Founder and CEO
Scalable Informatics LLC,
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web : http://www.scalableinformatics.com
phone: +1 734 786 8423
fax : +1 734 786 8452
cell : +1 734 612 4615
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
