<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=ks_c_5601-1987">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2650.12">
<TITLE>RE: Microsoft Releases Computational Cluster Technical Preview To olkit </TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Tim, </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>We should also consider wether or not this is Microsoft's answer to the clustering CD that was released at a trade show recently. I think IBM sponsored it.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>see below</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>Please try not to be so negative. I was involved with producing the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> "microsoft clustering solution", and I assure you, its much more </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> than you suggested. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I know what I wrote sounds negative, but I've based my e-mail on a strong technical and business opinion after a lot of continuous research, performance analysis, etc . . . I don't want to be flippant, and am glad to speak openly about my concerns. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>At the heart of the CD are the excellent tools from MPI software </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>Technology Inc. They are commercial tools, so the Beowulf community </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>may not like them. But rest assured, there are many companies out </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>there who'd rather pay someone to maintain their cluster middleware </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>than maintain it themselves.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I work for one such company. It's common in health care to just pay license fees, but it's also getting increasingly easier for a single developer to develop the functionality for an entire industry. That allows a company to question the need to pay any license fee, even an $8.00 fee for a CD. I'm putting my $8.00 toward the purchase of Sun's Solaris free operating system myself, and the clustering CD that IBM(?) has sponsored.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>A great irony in this situation is that there are many excellent products out there that run on Windows systems. The problem I get into is when I have to deal with the operating system itself, and Microsoft licenses. But that being said, the licensing fee MPI most likely paid to Microsoft to get access to the information it needed to develop MPI for Windows will increase the product's price. I could be wrong on this, so tell me if I am. If MPI did pay a fee, I can do without the effective tax. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> Also on the CD is Intel's MKL library, PLAPACK from Robert van de </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Geijn's group, and a collection of scripts and documentation from </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> the Cornel Threory Center. Oh, and lets not forget the Microsoft </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> contribution, Visual studio and Windows 2000. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>This begs the question - if I can get it elsewhere, or develop it myself, why deal with the special handing Windows requires? UNIX is the standard here and common demoninator among these technologies, not the other way around. Why not use UNIX/Linux/FreeBSD?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Utilizing Visual Studio, dealing with installing/upgrading Windows 2000, and working around any bugs is not something that will give me any appreciable benefit for my current and future development projects.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>An operating system that integrates web browsers, and other end-user conveniences takes away from critical CPU time in a clustering application. Visual studio is not compatible with the majority of GNU and UNIX development tools, making it more cost effective to stay away from Visual Studio. And, when Windows incorporates other features the clustering community (which includes Compaq/DEC, HP, IBM) have traditionally relied upon on their UNIX platforms, I'll take notice. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> Its a commercial clustering solution, so of course, the software is </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> provided as evaluation copies only. But the evaluation period is </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> more than long enough to determine if the solution stack works.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>But we cannot verify performance claims because the source code is closed, making any technical claim dubious. Again, it begs the question as to why a company should spend scare capital on Microsoft software licenses -vs- spending it on much needed employees and their training. Being an early adopter with Microsoft products, especially the operating system, is very costly in terms of person hours, simply because the person adopting the product has no choice but to work around the bugs. That introduces extra development time, etc . . .</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Every product has bugs, but if I can't fix them it's a problem.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> Its important to note that there is a community out there --- </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> granted not well represented on this list --- who sincerely believe </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> in the Microsoft O.S.'s. Rather than putting them down, I prefer </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> to recognize that "one size doesn't fit all" and do what can be > </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> done to enable clustering in both Linux and Microsoft O.S.'s. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>When the source code Microsoft provides is opened, both on the operating system and the tools, then we can begin the serious work of enabling clustering. As long as I have to wait for the next version to come out before I stop dealing with bugs, it's going to be very difficult to justify a high performance solution to my employer.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>On the business end of things, I know Microsoft is hoping the next version of Windows, Windows XP, is going to boost new PC sales. So, again comes the question - why buy into a company that upgrades its products in a way so as to require me to purchase a new computer? The point here is to use what we have as effectively as possible. Also, if Microsoft has a product, it also has an end-of-life in mind for the product. The cost of migrating, upgrading, in terms of licenses is just not financially beneficial to end users.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>--Richard</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: Schilling, Richard [<A HREF="mailto:RSchilling@affiliatedhealth.org">mailto:RSchilling@affiliatedhealth.org</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:59 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: beowulf@beowulf.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: RE: Microsoft Releases Computational Cluster Technical Preview To olkit </FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>O.K. someone has to start, so might as well be me. . . . </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I'd bet if Peter Dell ran some numbers on how much it would cost to hire all of us to develop custom software -vs- the total cost of ownership for a "Microsoft clustering solution", we'd beat 'em in price.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I looked at the web page for the clustering preview kit, and the kit comes with a bunch of evaluation software, including C++, and some versions of MPI and PALPACK. The problem I can see outright is that you've got to use all the evaluation stuff - Visual C++, Windows 2000 Server, etc . . . to do any testing. And after all that work to develop a test suite (e.g. convert your existing code), the only thing you have is a system that works for as long as the evaluation software runs out - if you even get done before then. And buying the software to keep it going means buying into the product life cycle for Microsoft products. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I've seen too much work go into other products to justify the time needed to explore this. Perhaps just another marketing ploy to hock mediocre software. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>So, am I alone in my concerns? </FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Here's to getting Microsoft to CONTRIBUTE something USEFUL, </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Richard Schilling </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Webmaster / Web Integration Programmer </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2><A HREF="http://www.affiliatedhealth.org" TARGET="_blank">http://www.affiliatedhealth.org</A> </FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>