- From: "Joe Landman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Thomas H Dr Pierce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ; "Robert G. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Beowulf] MS HPC... Oh dear...
Hi Thomas:
practical experience.
John Vert
Development Manager
Windows High Performance Computing
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Hahn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 6:22 PM
> To: John Vert
> Cc: beowulf@beowulf.org
> Subject: RE: [Beowulf] MS HPC... Oh d
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 12:25:04PM -0400, Joe Landman wrote:
> Quadrics/Myrinet/Infinipath folks... care to comment? Somehow I don't
> really think that this makes sense, cutting off a $4B+ market growing at
> 60+%/year in order to service a market of questionable size, growth
> rate, and inte
Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
Then it'll have soon better drivers than linux too for highend network
cards,
who no longer will release.
Quadrics/Myrinet/Infinipath folks... care to comment? Somehow I don't
really think that this makes sense, cutting off a $4B+ market growing at
60+%/year in ord
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Landman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Thomas H Dr Pierce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ; "Robert G. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Be
Douglas Eadline wrote:
Of course there is no absolute rule on how to maintain a market, but
stagecoach companies who did not recognize locomotives kind of missed
the technology curve.
Joking aside, there are things Linux can do that Windows (and any closed
source OS for that matter) cannot do.
Of course there is no absolute rule on how to maintain a market, but
stagecoach companies who did not recognize locomotives kind of missed
the technology curve.
Joking aside, there are things Linux can do that Windows (and any closed
source OS for that matter) cannot do. There are market segments
Of course there is no absolute rule on how to maintain a market, but
stagecoach companies who did not recognize locomotives kind of missed
the technology curve.
Joking aside, there are things Linux can do that Windows (and any closed
source OS for that matter) cannot do. There are market segments
Of course there is no absolute rule on how to maintain a market, but
stagecoach companies who did not recognize locomotives kind of missed
the technology curve.
Joking aside, there are things Linux can do that Windows (and any closed
source OS for that matter) cannot do. There are market segments
Hi Thomas:
Thomas H Dr Pierce wrote:
[...]
> Microsoft HPC will work IF the market wants the technology that they can
> supply. The answer is in market segments. And the Supercomputer market
I don't think the technology is what will win people over. Its the
packaging.
[...]
> The Linux HPC
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
You and i are like junkies busy downloading all kind of linux distributions
'for free',
sitting and waiting a LONG time (in your case expensive time paid by the
government,
in my case i just CLAIM my time is expensive as i'm running my own company)
Gardner
Pomper wrote:
Well, at the risk of the entire
mailing list coming down on my, I must disagree with the prevailing
viewpoint.
it does seem
that as soon
as someone mentions MS or somthing related to MS, most turn away...
give them some credit, they keep most idiots away from linu
Folks,
We are all so technical!
It does not work that way
Microsoft HPC will work IF the market
wants the technology that they can supply. The answer is in market
segments. And the Supercomputer market segment has been the science and
engineering users of the last 30 years. It has no
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Geoff Jacobs wrote:
Repeat after me: Wine Is Not an Emulator
I'm not sure about Cedega, but WINE dll hell is just as bad as the real
thing(tm).
Cedega is supra-tree commercial WINE on steroids. Sold almost entirely
to gamers. We have several in household and use cedega
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 20:53 +0100, James Cownie wrote:
> > Nothing. Unfortunately most folks use statically linked binaries for
> > MPI, so .so's are not a factor. I could be wrong, and maybe there
> > is a
> > way to get statically linked binaries to respect LD_PRELOAD or
> > LD_LIBRARY_PATH,
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 08:53:48PM +0100, James Cownie wrote:
> As I understand it this is what Intel's MPI (for LInux) does, so that
> you can choose the underlying hardware transport without relinking
> your code.
Just like HP-MPI, Scali MPI, Verari MPI, Par-Tec's MPI, and OpenMPI.
Did I l
Joe Landman wrote:
>
> Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>> From: "Jim Lux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> I'll just be waiting for the .NET Framework 2.x "cluster computing
>>> namespace" with all the message passing primitives.
>> Oh such primitives will undoubtfully get casted onto the tcp/ip library
>> using
Robert G. Brown wrote:
> Now, let's see -- RPM-based linux, supported by e.g. yum, does this very
> nicely.
APT-RPM works good too.
> ALL software is dependency aware and is typically built per
> distro per major revision thereof. People who refuse to use rpm --force
> ever, and who only use rpm
> The high-speed interconnects plug into our MPI stack through Winsock
> Direct. This enables low-latency usermode I/O at the sockets level. Any
how low-latency? anyone who cares about latency needs to know the numbers,
and especially versus linux on the same hardware.
> application that uses so
On 12 Jun 2006, at 15:49, Joe Landman wrote:
Ashley Pittman wrote:
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 00:02 -0400, Joe Landman wrote:
What Microsoft will do is to take away as much of this as they
can. I
haven't seen it yet, but I believe they will offer MPICH as a
DLL, so if
PathScale wants to wo
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Joe Landman wrote:
As I said, ROTFL. That works fine for numb-nuts spending $500. It
doesn't work that well for corporate or government decision makers
controlling the disposal of $500,000, where the question is whether it
buys (say) 2000 Linux nodes or 1000 Microsoft HPC
gives new meaning and urgency to BSOD ...
Joe Landman
Sent from handheld. Please excuse brevity and typos.
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Baker-LePain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: [Beowulf] MS HPC... Oh dear...
Date: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:12 am
Size: 689 bytes
To: Mike
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 at 12:40pm, Mike Davis wrote
I can see the point that instrument manufacturers may use this. They already
often use MS for their control systems in the Life Sciences. Luckily, the
nmr's, and x-ray machines don't.
I've seen clinical diagnostic equipment (yes, meant to direc
"Robert G. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Vincent Diepeveen :
We will confront you with your statement in a few years from now.
Go for it;-)
Note to all others: The following is a patented rgb rant with no
otherwise meaningful content. Hey, it has been a while...:-)
Oh de
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Greg Lindahl
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:43 PM
> To: beowulf@beowulf.org
> Subject: Re: [Beowulf] MS HPC... Oh dear...
>
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:36:23PM -0400, Joe La
: beowulf@beowulf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Beowulf] MS HPC... Oh dear...
Robert G. Brown wrote:
> WinXX clusters would have to produce a really tremendous advantage in
> application, and I just don't see it ever doing so. Joe seems to
> think that they'll get traction b
Robert,
For the most part I agree with a lot of what you've put out on the
Beowulf list, but this last response kind of struck a cord. I'm
positive you have much more experience in these matters, so if I'm
way off in my comments please feel free to correct me.
> Remember also that the "advan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I and several of my employees were present for Bill's keynote at
SC05. Afterwards one of our boys referred to it as "Microsoft
Cluster F**K 2003"
'nuf said.
I suspect that this is going to be a typical Microsoft venture: 80%
of what you wan
Well, at the risk of the entire mailing list coming down on my, I must disagree with the prevailing viewpoint.I have been following this list for quite a while, not participating because the vast majority are obviously working on much more advanced and detailed projects than I am. This is, however,
Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
> In fact i'm not amazed if you soon call every windows machine a server,
> because it runs 'services' that are clear server services.
this is very true of most machienes i use (within windows networking).
they all run file sharing, as part of windows, which means they
Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
We will confront you with your statement in a few years from now.
If microsoft doesn't price their server/cluster stuff too expensive then
in X years from
now they'll dominate the highend market. Microsoft always has just taken
markets by
storming in giving away copie
It is very strange to think about developing a very high-profile
scientific parallel program on a m$ platform. No control on the nodes,
no tweaking on the base level (OS), no freedom to change what you need,
and sky-line prices. Even if m$ is throwing tons of $$ on universities
this is not viable.
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:36:23PM -0400, Joe Landman wrote:
> This frustrates software builders, and end users. My point is that
> there is a better way, and Greg indicated that he had supported/proposed
> it.
By the way, chatting with other interconnect vendors and also with
ISVs, we're pretty
Robert G. Brown wrote:
> WinXX clusters would have to produce a really tremendous advantage in
> application, and I just don't see it ever doing so. Joe seems to think
> that they'll get traction by defining an MPI ABI -- I think that they're
Actually I think they will get traction from their
Robert G. Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>> We will confront you with your statement in a few years from now.
>
> Go for it;-)
>
> Note to all others: The following is a patented rgb rant with no
> otherwise meaningful content. Hey, it has been a while...:-)
>
At 02:40 PM 6/12/2006, Robert G. Brown wrote:
Note to all others: The following is a patented rgb rant with no
otherwise meaningful content. Hey, it has been a while...:-)
OK... it's been boring on the list recently. I'll take up the cudgels for
Microsoft, at least as I interpret their view
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert,
For the most part I agree with a lot of what you've put out on the
Beowulf list, but this last response kind of struck a cord. I'm
positive you have much more experience in these matters, so if I'm
way off in my comments please feel free to
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
We will confront you with your statement in a few years from now.
Go for it;-)
Note to all others: The following is a patented rgb rant with no
otherwise meaningful content. Hey, it has been a while...:-)
Anyway, feel free to hit the "d" key no
At 08:55 AM 6/12/2006, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
From: "Jim Lux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'll just be waiting for the .NET Framework 2.x "cluster computing
namespace" with all the message passing primitives.
Oh such primitives will undoubtfully get casted onto the tcp/ip library using
the swapfile.
At 07:30 AM 6/12/2006, Robert G. Brown wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Geoff Jacobs wrote:
Sigh.
The issue here is strictly one of commercial software. I very much
doubt that you'll see many folks who roll their own parallel software
migrating in droves to MS clusters for precisely these reasons -
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Joe Landman wrote:
In the best of all universes, this is true. But in the best of all
universes, I'd have naked slave girls fanning me and periodically
stuffing grapes in my mouth while I type, right?
Hmmm might your significant other have something to say about this?
At 06:51 AM 6/12/2006, Ashley Pittman wrote:
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 00:02 -0400, Joe Landman wrote:
> What Microsoft will do is to take away as much of this as they can. I
> haven't seen it yet, but I believe they will offer MPICH as a DLL, so if
> PathScale wants to work along side some other d
Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
I'm under the impression you're not quite understanding what microsoft
has been doing.
Vincent, I am pretty sure Chris/Bioteam know what Microsoft is doing.
They were in the MSFT booth last year at SC05, and I am pretty sure this
wasn't an accident. If it was, and St
Ashley Pittman wrote:
I am not advocating mimicing the Microsoft ABI. I am advocating getting
a single MPI ABI per ISA ABI. The question of course is, which one.
Aren't these two statements contradictory?
Per os was implied.
Ashley,
--
Joseph Landman, Ph.D
Founder and CEO
Scalable
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 11:56 -0400, Joe Landman wrote:
> > technical problems of making a stable, cross ISV ABI are the same on
> > Linux and Windows (possibly even slightly worse under Windows), the only
> > difference being that under Linux there is a large amount of inertia in
> > keeping the st
nal Message -
From: "Chris Dagdigian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Beowulf] MS HPC... Oh dear...
As usual, RGB nails it.
Anyone reading this list is not a candidate for MS Cluster Server 2003 -
the main target is commerci
Ashley Pittman wrote:
> I can almost see your argument here, currently there isn't a MPI ABI and
> you think that on Windows this situation might be different? The
My current belief is that Microsoft will create/mandate the model by
supplying the MPI. Some standards are defined after the fact
erver editions.
Vincent
- Original Message -
From: "Robert G. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Geoff Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Beowulf] MS HPC... Oh dear...
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Geoff Jacobs wrote:
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 11:18 -0400, Joe Landman wrote:
>
> Ashley Pittman wrote:
>
> >> More to the point, this dynamic binding allows you to write to the API,
> >> present a consistent ABI, and handle the hardware details elsewhere in a
> >> driver which can be linked in by the .so/.dll/.eieio me
Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>> From: "Jim Lux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I'll just be waiting for the .NET Framework 2.x "cluster computing
>> namespace" with all the message passing primitives.
>
> Oh such primitives will undoubtfully get casted onto the tcp/ip library
> using
> the swapfile.
Ok, I
Robert G. Brown wrote:
[...]
> There are two important differences that you miss, Joe. The first is
> that "dynamic link library" is a much cooler sounding name than a
> "shared object" library. "DLL" sort of rolls off of the tongue where
> "SO" sounds like it wants to be followed by "B".
Ee
As usual, RGB nails it.
Anyone reading this list is not a candidate for MS Cluster Server
2003 - the main target is commercial software vendors and possibly
some specialized turnkey system integrators.
One of the markets I can sorta see for MS in my field (life science-
ish stuff) is the
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Chris Dagdigian wrote:
Take one of those nice looking Rocketcalc deskside cluster boxes or something
like that Tyan cluster chassis that was discussed on the list last week,
slap MS Cluster Server on it and pair it with a nicely supported (by the
instrument maker or some t
Ashley Pittman wrote:
>> More to the point, this dynamic binding allows you to write to the API,
>> present a consistent ABI, and handle the hardware details elsewhere in a
>> driver which can be linked in by the .so/.dll/.eieio method at runtime.
>
> That's exactly what I thought. I was throw
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Joe Landman wrote:
Ashley Pittman wrote:
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 00:02 -0400, Joe Landman wrote:
What Microsoft will do is to take away as much of this as they can. I
haven't seen it yet, but I believe they will offer MPICH as a DLL, so if
PathScale wants to work along s
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 10:49 -0400, Joe Landman wrote:
>
> Ashley Pittman wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 00:02 -0400, Joe Landman wrote:
> >
> >> What Microsoft will do is to take away as much of this as they can. I
> >> haven't seen it yet, but I believe they will offer MPICH as a DLL, so if
>
iginal Message -
To: "SIM DOG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Beowulf] MS HPC... Oh dear...
At 06:20 PM 6/11/2006, SIM DOG wrote:
G'day all
Sorry if this turns out to be a dupe post but MS has just released their
HPC cluste
Ashley Pittman wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 00:02 -0400, Joe Landman wrote:
>
>> What Microsoft will do is to take away as much of this as they can. I
>> haven't seen it yet, but I believe they will offer MPICH as a DLL, so if
>> PathScale wants to work along side some other device, you can s
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Geoff Jacobs wrote:
Joe Landman wrote:
To a degree this is my point. Microsoft (I am not arguing their case,
just my impression of it) is going to try to make all this work out of
the box for you. It remains to be seen how well it works. I can't wait
for the first suppor
At 10:55 PM 6/11/2006, Joe Landman wrote:
Gerry Creager N5JXS wrote:
> Joe, et al,
>
> Unfortunately, we find, time and time again, when Microsoft comes in to
> tell us how good they're gonna do something, there's a catch.
As with most companies, there is. They are trying to sell you somethin
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 00:02 -0400, Joe Landman wrote:
> What Microsoft will do is to take away as much of this as they can. I
> haven't seen it yet, but I believe they will offer MPICH as a DLL, so if
> PathScale wants to work along side some other device, you can select
> this at runtime, and ju
At 09:59 PM 6/11/2006, Gerry Creager N5JXS wrote:
Joe, et al,
Unfortunately, we find, time and time again, when Microsoft comes in to
tell us how good they're gonna do something, there's a catch.
Here, it remains simple to me: I can tweak the OS if I need to, and I can
tweak the apps. With
At 09:02 PM 6/11/2006, Joe Landman wrote:
(sorry in advance for the length)
Gerry Creager N5JXS wrote:
> Ooh! ISO-9002 Buzzword Compliant marketing.
Hmmm not astroturfing here. I opine on http://scalability.org/?p=69
. A few others have linked to this, so we are getting some traffic.
Sp
At 06:20 PM 6/11/2006, SIM DOG wrote:
G'day all
Sorry if this turns out to be a dupe post but MS has just released their
HPC clustering kit.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/ccs/overview.mspx
While I've tried to approach this with an open mind... it didn't last
long. I'll refer any
Joe Landman wrote:
> To a degree this is my point. Microsoft (I am not arguing their case,
> just my impression of it) is going to try to make all this work out of
> the box for you. It remains to be seen how well it works. I can't wait
> for the first support calls about the ch_p3/p4 device tho
Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
> Not that i'm a big m$ fan in this, but your conclusion that:
> a) highend is easy to use
> b) highend is very cheap
No. Not my conclusion, I have no idea where you pulled this from.
[...]
> Linux is NOT easy to use.
So if you hide the complexity of the CLI, hand
5% nowadays.
So against that a 20% growth claim honestely isn't impressing me much.
In fact i'm not amazed if you soon call every windows machine a server,
because it runs 'services' that are clear server services.
Vincent
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Landma
Chris Samuel wrote:
On Monday 12 June 2006 14:02, Joe Landman wrote:
If HPC has been both too expensive AND too difficult to use, then why is
it as a market growing at 20+% per year?
Ahh, don't let facts confuse you!
My guess is that the targets of their comment are MS's customers who have
On Monday 12 June 2006 14:02, Joe Landman wrote:
> If HPC has been both too expensive AND too difficult to use, then why is
> it as a market growing at 20+% per year?
Ahh, don't let facts confuse you!
My guess is that the targets of their comment are MS's customers who have
never touched a clus
On Monday 12 June 2006 14:59, Gerry Creager N5JXS wrote:
> If I recall correctly, the Data General ad in response included the
> comment, "The bastards say, 'Welcome'."
Apparently DG produced but never actually ran that advert.
http://dealarchitect.typepad.com/deal_architect/2005/09/the_basta
On Monday 12 June 2006 15:39, Greg Lindahl wrote:
> FWIW there is a de-facto ABI with MPICH when using shared libraries,
> we have used this trick to run all sorts of ISV codes with our
> interconnect.
My guess is that it is the ISV's that MS are going to target:
"Why bother building and support
Gerry Creager N5JXS wrote:
> Joe, et al,
>
> Unfortunately, we find, time and time again, when Microsoft comes in to
> tell us how good they're gonna do something, there's a catch.
As with most companies, there is. They are trying to sell you something. :(
> Here, it remains simple to me: I c
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 12:02:54AM -0400, Joe Landman wrote:
> While some folks here defend this, I want to
> note that end users don't give a rip about that. They want the new
> fangled hardware to work. Right away. Without a rebuild of the app.
> So do the vendors.
I *knew* there must be a r
Joe, et al,
Unfortunately, we find, time and time again, when Microsoft comes in to
tell us how good they're gonna do something, there's a catch.
Here, it remains simple to me: I can tweak the OS if I need to, and I
can tweak the apps. With a Windows solution fo rmy cluster environment,
I c
(sorry in advance for the length)
Gerry Creager N5JXS wrote:
> Ooh! ISO-9002 Buzzword Compliant marketing.
Hmmm not astroturfing here. I opine on http://scalability.org/?p=69
. A few others have linked to this, so we are getting some traffic.
Specifically, I am of the opinion that the sen
Ooh! ISO-9002 Buzzword Compliant marketing.
gerry
SIM DOG wrote:
G'day all
Sorry if this turns out to be a dupe post but MS has just released their
HPC clustering kit.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/ccs/overview.mspx
While I've tried to approach this with an open mind... it did
G'day all
Sorry if this turns out to be a dupe post but MS has just released their
HPC clustering kit.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/ccs/overview.mspx
While I've tried to approach this with an open mind... it didn't last
long. I'll refer anyone to ClusterMonkey's article about wh
77 matches
Mail list logo
