> post about people and politics: The myth that commercial software has > better support. It seems managers always want to buy commercial software > it's supposed to have better support.
it's about risk aversion. when people are launched (or climb) into positions of authority, their risk aversion goes through the roof. some people/organizations try to address this; others just become sclerotic. it's really unfortunate and actually relevant to this list. at one time, "beowulf" implied a certain amount of daring - repurposing of hardware intended basically for desktop use, DIY OS installs, custom-compiled applications, etc. how many clusters built this year will just be a bunch of nodes bid from a big-name vendor? I suspect that tweaking (inherently risky, but also inherently valuable) is pretty much limited to tiny clusters, where no risk-averse personage is involved. I think this is a real shame, since it means there basically are no interesting clusters anymore: every meal is gruel (you can survive that way, but...) I sometimes wonder whether organizations should aim a particular fraction of their budget at higher-risk projects. I know companies like google and facebook are quite deliberate at cultivating risk, but there's a lot less derring-do in, say, a multi-institutional academic HPC consortium. is it just a matter of risk-to-payoff calculations? it's hard to supply either number, which leads the risk-averse to always go conservative. (a phenomenon present in politics, I suppose!) _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
