On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 01:37:05PM -0400, Mark Hahn wrote:
> >On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:28:12AM -0400, Mark Hahn wrote:
> >>- do we need exascale anyway? would the world be better off with a thousand
> >
> >Yes, EFlops is entry level for projects like
> >http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/
[Apologies if you got multiple copies of this email. If you'd like to
opt out of these announcements, information on how to unsubscribe is
available at the bottom of this email.]
*
EURO-PAR 2013 WORKSHOPS: SECOND JOINT CALL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17/05/13 01:55, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> What, it ain't even Friday yet?
Depends on your timezone.. ;-)
cheers,
Chris (GMT +10)
- --
Christopher SamuelSenior Systems Administrator
VLSCI - Victorian Life Sciences Computation Initiative
Ema
On 5/16/13 9:50 AM, "Mark Hahn" wrote:
>>>
>> I saw some presentation a year or two ago that showed an exascale
>>system as
>> a sphere with the switch complex in the center. It looked very 60s-ish,
>> proto-EPCOTish...
>
>works for me! though if you're going to do that, it would be awefully
>
On 05/16/2013 01:37 PM, Mark Hahn wrote:
>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:28:12AM -0400, Mark Hahn wrote:
>>> - do we need exascale anyway? would the world be better off with a thousand
>>
>> Yes, EFlops is entry level for projects like
>> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/neurologist-markam-
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:28:12AM -0400, Mark Hahn wrote:
>> - do we need exascale anyway? would the world be better off with a thousand
>
> Yes, EFlops is entry level for projects like
> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/neurologist-markam-human-brain/all/
> and if you want invididuall
>> 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...
>
> We already exist in 3d - racks. We limit rack heights due to weight already
> (another
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Mark Hahn wrote:
> 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 scali
> And I thought it was hard to hire Fpga software developers.
>
Only in this universe
--
Doug
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 16, 2013, at 8:37 AM, "Joe Landman"
> wrote:
>
>> On 05/16/2013 11:23 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 05:18:17PM +0200, Andrew Holway wrote:
>>
>> [.
And I thought it was hard to hire Fpga software developers.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 16, 2013, at 8:37 AM, "Joe Landman"
wrote:
> On 05/16/2013 11:23 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 05:18:17PM +0200, Andrew Holway wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Quantum or some shizzle. It will
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:45:21AM -0400, Mark Hahn wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, if you're working with nm^3 bits you can only directly couple
to neighbor bits, wh
>> 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
On 05/16/2013 11:23 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 05:18:17PM +0200, Andrew Holway wrote:
[...]
>> Quantum or some shizzle. It will do to clusters what the cluster did
>> to IBM and Cray.
>
> It's pretty clear we'll be getting self-assembled
> molecular circuitry and spintronics
On 05/16/2013 11:18 AM, Andrew Holway wrote:
> There is going to be a paradigm shift or some new kind of disruptive
> technology is going to pop up before 'exascale' happens.
>
> Quantum or some shizzle. It will do to clusters what the cluster did
> to IBM and Cray.
We have to stop using fermions
>
> There is going to be a paradigm shift or some new kind of disruptive
> technology is going to pop up before 'exascale' happens.
>
> Quantum or some shizzle. It will do to clusters what the cluster did
> to IBM and Cray.
That is doubtful. We got a one-time jump from accelerators (per the
slide
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 05:18:17PM +0200, Andrew Holway wrote:
> There is going to be a paradigm shift or some new kind of disruptive
> technology is going to pop up before 'exascale' happens.
Exascale will happen with conventional technology, it
will just take a bit longer than 2020. We already h
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Mark Hahn wrote:
> >>
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B83UyWf1s-CdZnFoS2RiU2lJbEU/edit?usp=drive_web
> > Interesting, but depressing, presentation.
>
> I found it unilluminating, actually. don't we all know about power issues?
>
Know? Yes. To this extent? May
There is going to be a paradigm shift or some new kind of disruptive
technology is going to pop up before 'exascale' happens.
Quantum or some shizzle. It will do to clusters what the cluster did
to IBM and Cray.
On 16 May 2013 17:01, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:28:12AM -0400,
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:28:12AM -0400, Mark Hahn wrote:
> - do we need exascale anyway? would the world be better off with a thousand
Yes, EFlops is entry level for projects like
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/neurologist-markam-human-brain/all/
and if you want invididually accura
>> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B83UyWf1s-CdZnFoS2RiU2lJbEU/edit?usp=drive_web
> Interesting, but depressing, presentation.
I found it unilluminating, actually. don't we all know about power issues?
to me it raised two interesting questions:
- what software and hardware architecture would be
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:02:42AM +, Lux, Jim (337C) wrote:
> There are people looking at clusters of FPGAs, with processors either
> instantiated in the FPGA logic, or part of the fabric (e.g. PowerPC cores
> in Xilinx FPGAs).
Notice that Parallella Epiphany is basically an on-die DSP
(Tige
21 matches
Mail list logo
