[Beowulf] using extend-reach IB?
hahn at mcmaster.ca
Thu Oct 11 09:15:52 PDT 2007
>> are they shipping? I checked their website a couple weeks ago
>> and they were talking 1q08 availability.
> You must not have looked thoroughly enough ... ;-) ... and you tend to be
> very thorough, but it was after regular business hours. Intel is selling
> them directly from there webstore and they offer a couple of other
> vendors. That is where I got the pricing.
I think you mean this page
right? to me, it looks like they're all still listed as
"Out of stock: available January 2008" like this:
perhaps you found a page of other products? or is their stock warning bogus?
>>> speeds out to100m. A 25m cable is going to run you about $300 (US). Power
>> similar to Gore's one (which is copper I think).
> Mmm ... their website specs them out only to 25m (with asterisk) and that
>is a cable with a .9cm diameter! I wonder what the bend radius is on that?
>Even their photo of the cable looks like a cobra ... ;-) ... might be OK if
>you only need one I guess. Did not see the pricing, but if it is the same
>as Intel's fiber why buy the snake? The claimed power draw is lower than I
>expected though ... anyone actually tested/used this cable?
my machineroom currently has something like 3.6 tons of quadrics cables,
which are all about 1 cm dia. I don't find that the bend radius is much
of a concern - space certainly is, since getting 38 quadrics out of a rack
is hard enough, not to mention switch racks which have 256 cables.
I believe even the thickest IB is slimmer than quadrics, but yes, I'm hoping
for optical in the next genreation.
though in general, I think the cluster layout is actually more important
than worrying about the cable. for instance, distributing leaf switches
among racks is probably a good idea, and if you do that, you almost
certainly want to use copper for short/local interconnect.
> It is a larger system product for now, but as bandwidth demands go up on
>smaller systems it won't be the length limitations that kill copper, but
>weight, diameter, added power draw, BERs, and equalizing total links costs.
I'm skeptical of the proposition that bandwidth is changing that much -
reeks of the great inet bubble. within a cluster, sure, there are some
apps which do really want more bw. (though the most common bw-user I hear
of is weather codes which seem to do all-to-all purely out of laziness.)
bw out of clusters is probably growing, but at modest rates - have you
priced a full-on 1Gb ISP link, let alone 10Gb?
regards, mark hahn.
More information about the Beowulf