>> I found it unilluminating, actually. don't we all know about power issues? > > Know? Yes. To this extent? Maybe not.
OK, I can see that. to me, power is similar to a number of other issues, which provide extreme limits to scaling. (power, reliability, net, perhaps even storage and software complexity). from a CS background, these all have distressing O()-type complexity, so each is clearly a hard limit at some scale, given some level of technology. maybe I'm just more pessimistic ;) I guess I did think the flops power versus even on-chip communication thing was interesting. but isn't the lesson to optimize for dataflow *and* sometimes perform redundant computations? >>> forward and with a 20 Mw power budget, an exascale machine's network >> would >>> consume all the power leaving nothing for computation. >> >> well, that sounds absurd - were they assuming a full-bisection fat tree of >> older (hotter, lower fanout) generation interconnect? > > Even dragonfly topologies (high-radix routers with low hop count) and a > bandwidth taper of 1/2 given current power consumption levels will exceed > 20 Mw. anyone have an url on this topic? fundamentally, I've always reasoned that since we exist in 3d, our networks need to be a 3d lattice at scale. fighting power (flops, comm) seems like a noble, *engineering* fight, but fighting our existence's dimensionality is silly... yes, I would like to demo your new blackhole-based interconnect! ;) regards, mark hahn. _______________________________________________ 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
