On 09/04/15 03:16, H. Vidal, Jr. wrote: > Curious as to what the body of thought is here on this article:
Some quick random thoughts on this article from down under: 1) Whilst MPI implies HPC HPC does not necessarily imply MPI (and it never has in my decade of doing HPC, there have always been perfectly legitimate embarrassingly parallel applications). 2) Working at a life sciences HPC centre I see roughly zero interest in Hadoop and even less interest in Spark. Oh, and we've got a computer scientist who has heard of Chapel. But he also uses Haskell so you've got to be careful. ;-) It's just lots of data in lots of files in (if you're lucky, lots of) directories with various apps opening them and reading through them and writing others. Sometimes a byte at a time. The applications are Python, Java and a few in C. 3) I agree with the overarching theme of the article though - HPC centres like where I am exist for scientists to get results, and as I ranted^W wrote on Twitter last week: "I'm sorry, these genes you've discovered relating to breast cancer aren't that important as your code isn't closely coupled" - says no one https://twitter.com/chris_bloke/status/583378655180500992 Lets face it, HPL is a very efficient tightly-coupled MPI code that benefits nobody in practical terms (OK, maybe power companies). All the best! Chris -- Christopher Samuel Senior Systems Administrator VLSCI - Victorian Life Sciences Computation Initiative Email: sam...@unimelb.edu.au Phone: +61 (0)3 903 55545 http://www.vlsci.org.au/ http://twitter.com/vlsci _______________________________________________ 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
