[Beowulf] Re: Finally, a solution for the 64 core 4TB RAM market
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.
Jason Riedy jason at acm.orgFri May 29 05:56:09 PDT 2009
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Re: Finally, a solution for the 64 core 4TB RAM market
- Next message: [Beowulf] Finally, a solution for the 64 core 4TB RAM market
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
And Mark Hahn writes: > the question is how much volume there is in the >= 8-socket market, > and I don't mean "how many PHB's can be persuaded they need one > because they're important". I know a few large companies bought a handful of high-end Starfires each for their database systems. Not much in volume (this is less than 100 total for these folks), but a bit in profits and obscenely expensive support contracts. The processor count (or performance) had less impact than the amount of memory available. I suspect this semi-vapor-hardware announcement was targeted at current Sun users... Showing a steady upgrade path may move them to IBM+Intel even if not these particular systems. And, because one party is IBM, they may sell these with 1, 2, 4, or 8 sockets activated according to your contract. Keeps the hardware volume up. ;) And I'm mostly being hopeful because I want a box using these 8x8 boards to replace something I'm suffering against. "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!" (with a bit more latency tolerance, although there may be evidence of a diminishing return) >> Likely replacing current mid-range, <100-node clusters with a >> single box. > > unclear to me. a current mid-range 100-node cluster is 800 cores, > and I don't think we're talking about that in an SMP. Intel's recent > nehalem-ex preview was 128 hyperthreads (64 real). That 100-node cluster likely has 400-1600 GiB of memory, which is a bit smaller than 4000 GiB. But that 4 TiB number includes *really* expensive memory. Plus, I imagine a Larrabee-successor or merge could drop into these boards for workloads heavier on computing. That may be 3 years off, but I can see ramping up the core counts and keeping the relatively inexpensive but fast interconnect as quite useful. If your code is latency sensitive (i.e. not one-sided linear algebra decompositions), fewer cores, more memory, and a fast+cheaper interconnect may end up being faster. But then I'm more accustomed to poorly designed systems that have 2 cores per node, an expensive interconnect, and NFS as the only shared file space. ;) Replacing one of *those* is a no-brainer, which is about what went into it in the first place... Jason
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Re: Finally, a solution for the 64 core 4TB RAM market
- Next message: [Beowulf] Finally, a solution for the 64 core 4TB RAM market
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
