[Beowulf] Multicore Is Bad News For Supercomputers
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Geoff Jacobs gdjacobs at gmail.comFri Dec 5 10:24:10 PST 2008
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Multicore Is Bad News For Supercomputers
- Next message: [Beowulf] Multicore Is Bad News For Supercomputers
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Bruno Coutinho wrote: <snip> > Datamining is useful for both commercial and scientific world and is > very data-intensive, so I think this issue will be addressed, or at least > someone (Sun, for example) will build processors for data intensive > applications that are more balanced, but several times more expensive. </snip> Here's some current hardware which is superior to the norm in terms of I/O (so the manufacturers would claim). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasparc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium For those with really deep pockets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEC_SX-9 Q: Do Hitachi and Fujitsu still do vector machines? I guess my point is that the article itself is a little fluffy. This is just the old problem of the kernel size overflowing cache/memory boundaries inconveniently. The answer is always more I/O and tighter integration. -- Geoffrey D. Jacobs
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Multicore Is Bad News For Supercomputers
- Next message: [Beowulf] Multicore Is Bad News For Supercomputers
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
