[Beowulf] Capacity / Capability Computing
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.
Mark Hahn hahn at mcmaster.caTue May 20 09:08:05 PDT 2008
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Capacity / Capability Computing
- Next message: [Beowulf] Supercomputing Companies in the United Kingdom
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> Definitions please. they're lingo, and bad lingo at that, since the normal English meanings don't give much of a clue. some vendors like to talk "stale up vs scale out", which is just as bad. let's agree to use conventionally meaningful terms. for instance, when people say capacity, I think they usually mean "primarily serial or mock-parallel (embarassingly parallel, loosely coupled)" when they say "capability", they mean "large, tightly-coupled". come to think of it, "throughput" is another inherently poor term, widely used. I think people usually mean "lots of jobs per hour", but what they really mean is "lots of small jobs", since a "capability" cluster will have high throughput as well, just bigger, fewer chunks... I think it's pretty uncommon for people to use "capability" applied to large-memory serial machines, or fast-storage clusters. the term has connotations of "grand challenge" problems, for whatever that's worth ;)
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Capacity / Capability Computing
- Next message: [Beowulf] Supercomputing Companies in the United Kingdom
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
