Portable 8-iMac Linux Cluster Real World Debut 73
Snocone writes: "Here is the first real world application (researching drug effects on the brain, ironically enough) of Terra Soft's 8-way Black Lab Linux cluster.
Even if they didn't deserve mad props for standing up proudly against the Lintel hegemony, there's just something fundamentally hilarious about selling an $18K supercomputer made out of iMacs." So - eight Imacs. You could get the different colors, and call it a Lifesavers Candy Cluster?
Re: IRQs (Score:1)
The Sound Blaster Live's SB16 emulation has been terrible on my system. I had to move my ethernet card to a different slot so Win98 would start. Otherwise it would lock before it even started the interface. Of course, that is probably a special case because the SB16 emulation requires it's own IRQ.
It would be much better if we as users didn't have to deal with IRQ's if we didn't have to. The fact of the mater is, even with IRQ sharing, we still have to deal with IRQ's on occasion so that things will work as they should.
Taddeusz
Re:More info from Terra Soft (Score:1)
----
Re:G4's are mean scientific machines (Score:1)
They recently added Arthur D. Levinson, CEO of Genentech to the board of directors. It probably (hopefully) means they plan on taking science seriously.
press release (Score:2)
Re:uhm, FireWire... (Score:1)
By the time USB 2.0 comes out, FireWire 2.0 at 800MBps will be available (existing installations will be upwards compatible) - that is, if you want to play the "my vaporware is better than your's" game.
Most of all, FireWire 1.0 is here and supported now. USB 2.0 ain't.
Harry
Re:imacs??!? (Score:1)
----
Re:Wouldn't the G4 be a better option? (Score:1)
> if I was building a cluster of anyhing, I'd want
> to use Athlon or Alpha
...and you'd have what - hardware that runs far hotter, and gives you less performance even though it's labeled higher - great thinking.
Any particular reason you'd prefer them, besides the rote repeat of marketing buzzwords...?
> EV6 r0x0rz
Oh, look, little dogs pissing on a hydrant.
Harry
Re:Missing Logic? (Score:1)
Harry
Re:G4's are mean DSP machine not scientific mach (Score:1)
Re:Finally, Linux on useable hardware. (Score:1)
Yes, I know -- but idiotic jargon is idiotic jargon, no matter how many monkeys repeat it.
Re:Power PC built in Clustering Capability with G4 (Score:1)
If it costs $18K, it's NOT a supercomputer (Score:2)
Re:Logic Boards (Score:1)
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to purchase $X amount of iMacs if you plan on using only the boards.
Why do you need 8? (Score:1)
Re:Logic Boards (Score:2)
iSupercomputing (Score:1)
there are better ways to spend your money... but maybe not many funnier ways
Markus.
Re:G4's are mean scientific machines (Score:2)
They actually do.
If you read apples page about the G4, it used to have (this is PRE dual g4 powermacs, but G4 none the less) a lot of articles there about using it in science. Like how it has the lowest Gigaflop per dollar or something IIRC.
take a look:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/
And the iMacs are developed for the cluster because they are small, netbootable, and boards can have a G4 upgrade put on them.
-Pfhor
Re:Is this right? (Score:3)
Alpha either... (Score:1)
If you really want to get what you paid for with an alpha, you have to use compaqs compiler. gcc is just not very good at optimizations on the alpha arch. There are just not enough skilled programmers working on gcc for alpha and probably PPC also for that matter. It takes years to fully optimize a compiler plus a very strange kind of person with the dedication and knowledge needed.
Re:built in Clustering -- calling the bluff (Score:2)
So, I could possibly see how MOT has some registers that are sort of doing the Intel thing... You know, the Intel Net Pipeline. The one that makes the Internet faster. Just like the Motorola DSM registers?
And it will take a LONG time before I'm convinced that your Apple iFruit can replace my Ultra Enterprise Server. I don't care if it's running BSD underneath, Apple has a LONG way to go before I'm convinced I should use an Apple product anywhere in an environment that is anywhere near mission-critical or secure.
Companies have to earn their respect. Apple has not yet made a server OS. It will take a long time of them having a good server OS for me to be convinced that I should use it.
Re:Finally, Linux on useable hardware. (Score:1)
>all of the options come support nightmares and
>driver conflicts that would drive the most stable
>person into the loony bin [what in the HELL is an
>IRQ, ANYWAY?!]- yes,
1. I've supported Macs, PCs, HP/9000s and Sparcs. Mac hardware is not any less a support nightmare than PCs.
2. Driver conflicts are going to be an OS issue.
3. The whole trying hand-setting IRQs issue was taken care of with PCI.
>not only is it aesthetically pleasing
Supercomputers are typically not build to be furniture.
>[arranged in a circle, they'd look quite
>eye-catching compared to the average beige boxen]
Which would be a waste of space and complicate administration for no good reason.
The more likely configuration is a bunch of 1U machines with a KVM switch.
>yon iMac currently goes for about 800$ at the
>minimum end.
And yon $800 iMac has a 350MHz G3. Considering even the brand new shiny G4s can't match an Athlon (or god forbit an Alpha) for performance, this is just *such* a great choice. Really.
>runs on a PPC chip [WAY cooler, far more stable,
>need I go on?]
Cooler? In terms of the chip running cooler, yes. This is one thing Motorolla got right.
Stable? You're full of shit. I'm an admin at a place with over fifty PC servers. Their uptimes don't make them seem unstable at all.
>It's the cheapest reliable computer package out
>there,
Macintoshes are FAR from cheap from a price/performance ratio persepective. Not to mention that PCs are *JUST AS RELIABLE*.
Not to mention that, in order to make the things reasonably compact (yes, floor space costs money) you have to rip them apart and likely void their warranties.
>and you're never going to have to worry about
>hardware driver conflicts or a thousand other
>setup nightmares common to the PC end of things.
Kindly stop talking out of your ass. It doesn't make for a pleasant debate.
Re:Wouldn't the G4 be a better option? (Score:1)
And altivec is next to worthless for most mathematical computation. It only works on single precision floats, and even then doesn't even give you a factor of two speedup, since there is (as I recall) only one altivec unit so you can't pipeline the altivec calls. On the other hand, the G4 has more floating point units than the G3, and faster ones, so it definitely would be much better.
Humor in action (Score:1)
The only thing that would be funnier would be to swap out motherboard diodes for LED's and seeing them flash with the data.
What about the compiler? (Score:2)
If this is true, what advantages does buying eight whole iMacs and throwing the cases away give over building the same thing out of an array of single board PIII computers?
Re:but wait ... (Score:1)
Haven't I heard something about the i860 being a "Cray on a chip"? I guess old marketing tatic die hard...
where (Score:1)
**Bong water Gurgle**
sidenote:Would be kinda funny to make a bong out of a Mac...New term for a "Mac Attack".
Re:Finally, Linux on useable hardware. (Score:1)
>all of the options come support nightmares and
>driver conflicts that would drive the most stable
>person into the loony bin [what in the HELL is an
>IRQ, ANYWAY?!]- yes,
>1. I've supported Macs, PCs, HP/9000s and Sparcs. Mac hardware is not any less a support nightmare than PCs.
I would tend to disagree to a point. If a knowledgale Mac person sets up the Mac, then experience shows that it _should_ be cheaper to upkeep
But more often than not since the reality is that Winodws owns >80% of the market, a windows person will attempt to setup the mac and there ignorance will lead to an unstable Platform.
>2. Driver conflicts are going to be an OS issue.
Agreed. I have my share of them, but its is that next step that is important. Hit the 'net and find a _solution_ to the problem.
>3. The whole trying hand-setting IRQs issue was taken care of with PCI.
Without going off the deep end, I Completely disagree. I have a windows machine, that refuses to let the following work together:
Ethernet Card (PCI)
Modem (PCI)
Sound Card (PCI)
USB (MS Natural Keyboard)
PS/2 Mouse (Logitech Cordless Wheel)
The error reported is IRQ Conflicts. I have personally worked on this for a long time. I have consulted "experts" with windows. The problems have never been solved, so I have to hack around the problems.
Then, on top of that I tried to hook up my new digital Camera through USB. What a joke. After calling the cameras tech support, they stated that I need to isolate the IRQ for the USB device. Well that is all well and good, but I seem to be out of IRQ positions. So basically I am trying to cram 10 pounds of crap into a 5 pound bag. Nice...
>Supercomputers are typically not build to be furniture.
True. The iMac Cluster is built using Marathon Computing iRacks. So the entire thing is a big black wheeled thing. You should love it.
And yes, some of us want the computer on our desk to be "cool" looking. We do not want to feel that the thing we just spent a pile of hard earned money is relegated to _under_ the desk. We want to show it off. Let people look at it.
> Considering even the brand new shiny G4s can't match an Athlon (or god forbit an Alpha) for performance, this is just *such* a great choice. Really.
Depends on what you are testing it against. If you are doing Photoshop/DV for a living, then the G4 is BETTER than an Athlon. Tests have shown this to be true. If you are doing other things, then the Athlon would be faster.
> Macintoshes are FAR from cheap from a price/performance ratio persepective. Not to mention that PCs are *JUST AS RELIABLE*.
Again, I am paying a bit more for two things, both of which I prioritize over raw speed. I am paying for a Nice looking Box and an User Interface that is both pleasing to my eye and logical for _me_ to use. Considering My PC does not seem to want to work well at all, then I would have to disagree with the second part of your Sentence.
>Not to mention that, in order to make the things reasonably compact (yes, floor space costs money) you have to rip them apart and likely void their warranties.
Yup, the APPLE warranty is toast, BUT Terra Soft provides their own warranty for the cluster.
> Kindly stop talking out of your ass. It doesn't make for a pleasant debate.
Remember, other peoples Milage may vary from yours. Feel free to debate. Point out problems with the post. State your case, but when you make wide sweeping statements be able to back them up with Facts not religous war type hype crap.
MMMmmm... Strawberry Clusters.... (Score:1)
Wouldn't the G4 be a better option? (Score:3)
Of course, if I was building a cluster of anyhing, I'd want to use Athlon or Alpha -- EV6 r0x0rz...
--
Cute, but is it newsworthy? (Score:1)
Details are a little short - the article says that it's all in the same box, which implies that there is a high-speed interconnect. I hope that isn't the ethernet port on each of the i-macs.
What's so special? They're doing parallel programming against a few (almost) machines? Parallel programming types have been doing this for years, and there are highly developed libraries to help synchronize and send data to independent machines across a network which are participating in a parallel computation.
This is going to start a craze of little kids gutting their i-macs to make a super computer with all of the other little kids in the neighborhood. Be the first on your block!
And I thought the G4 was the supercomputer! (Score:3)
Lifesavers. (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:Wouldn't the G4 be a better option? (Score:4)
Regards,
Dan Burcaw
dburcaw@terrasoftsolutions.com
Terra Soft Solutions, Inc.
Re:Isn't Apple Trying to Block This? (Score:1)
Regards,
Dan Burcaw
dburcaw@terraplex.com
Terra Soft Solutions, Inc.
Re:Cute, but is it newsworthy? (Score:4)
Regards,
Dan Burcaw
dburcaw@terraplex.com
Terra Soft Solutions, Inc.
Re:What about a Beowulf cluster of these thi... (Score:2)
Re:$18,000 - $12,000 != 0 (Score:1)
Terra Soft Solutions are, AFAICT [terrasoftsolutions.com], concerned with quality and responsibility [terrasoftsolutions.com] in their work, as well as making an operating profit.
Build a parallel cluster at home. Get it to work. Now think about supporting it for a range of uses and users. Now add up the cost again.
- Derwen
Re:FireWire (Score:1)
He deserves +mod points for "creativity in trolling".
I especially liked "front-port hyperoptic coaxial" and "FTTC tech ... to be used in small, CAT5-based RCN clusters".
Re:Finally, Linux on useable hardware. (Score:2)
N or S? Was Re:Finally, Linux on useable hardware. (Score:1)
Missing Logic? (Score:3)
Mac Cube (Score:1)
Re:Finally, Linux on useable hardware. (Score:1)
Re:Wouldn't the G4 be a better option? (Score:1)
I don't think heat dissipation is a big concern for someone building a serious cluster unless the only housing they have for it is an igloo.
gives you less performance even though it's labeled higher
The G4 may be more efficient with its MHz, but x86 has more of them to compensate. Without Altivec, the G4 is just another CPU.
Any particular reason you'd prefer them, besides the rote repeat of marketing buzzwords...?
Your deceptive presentation of the G4's performance leads me to believe you are a (victim of a?) marketroid yourself. Furthermore, your past comments lead me to believe you are in bed with Steve Jobs.
--
Dual G4's seem a better solution (Score:1)
You can get a dual 450Mhz G4 with gigabit ethernet for less than US$2500 even from the Apple on-line store - and if you could dump the DVD drive you could do even better. (It's +US$300 for dual 500s.)
That's about the cost of two iMacs with a better ethernet, better FPU and the addition of Altivec engine.
Of course alot of that advantage is assuming your OS and solutions are able/written to take advantage of Altivec^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Velocity Engine vectorization. Although the added FPU performance will benefit about any scientific inquiry and the ethernet is mostly an advantage to problems that require intensive CPU->CPU communications.
But in reality the forth coming Mac OS X should be the best solution for this set-up. It has full featured SMP for the OS, complete protocols for apps to access SMP and Altivec accleration for many of the OS operations with Mach/BSD threads running undernaeth it.
NEXT had distributed processing/clustering protocols. If the distributed/clustering make it in to the first release of OS X it should be the perfect solution for this kind of thing.
=tkk
P.S. Of course if low-end 11MB ethernet is good enough for your problems you could add Airport cards and have a covert/wireless supercomputer without anyone in your office knowing it! ;)
My questions... (Score:1)
Re:Wouldn't the G4 be a better option? (Score:1)
They're a great idea in principle, but this fanless thing is a bit silly IMHO. And I LIKE Apple's industrial design!
/Brian
nice rack (but not yet) (Score:1)
Hell, now that I think of it, Apple doesn't even have to do that themselves, now do they?
/Brian
I am not too familiar with Beowulf Clusters, but; (Score:5)
FireWire (Score:1)
On the other hand, it won't be long before FTTC technology becomes cheap -- and stable -- enough to be used in small, CAT5-based RCN clusters. I'd expect this kind of cluster to break the $18k price point mentioned in the article by the end of the first half of 2001.
Re:Logic Boards (Score:1)
8 logic boards in one iMac box!
Ditching the iMac's cool clearish "container" makes the iMac a pretty unexciting computer...
Power PC built in Clustering Capability with G4 (Score:3)
Re:Wouldn't the G4 be a better option? (Score:1)
Re:Cute, but is it newsworthy? (Score:1)
Re:Finally, Linux on useable hardware. (Score:2)
what in the HELL is an IRQ, ANYWAY?!
Right... {yawn} The tired old argument about how much easier it is for the layman to deal with Mac hardware. Great marketing hype for people like my old man. Now go ask him why he can't use his Mac printer with his Mac.
Umm... constantly?
Yeah, aesthetics are so important in computing. You really like that marketing stuff, huh?
If you look up and to the left of your 'n' key, you'll find an 's' key. I hope it's not broken? Open your eyen and use the right lettern.
by many... what? marketing drones? geese? fruit flies?
You might try a version of reality that isn't so tainted with Mac marketing hype, it might help you provide better input in a technical forum such as this. Or maybe not... As the song says, "There's always a joker, that's the rule, as foolish as he can be..."
"Think Different"... (Score:3)
"Because there's always room for JELL-O!"
Where's Bill Cosby when you need him?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
IRQ (Score:1)
Not that I don't like some Macs, but I'll take my cheaper PC hardware over a pricey G4 any day.
And why is it everyone refers to cases as beige? Cases come in a variety of colors today, from off-white to black to iMac-ripoff. If you want your PC to look like a mentally retarded UFO, you can.
***
Re:Logic Boards (Score:1)
Based on the UMA 1 chipset, it is a very fast logicboard.
The memory-, AGP- and PCI controller are all integrated in one chip and supports concurent datatransfer.
The videochip is connected through AGP and everything else (IDE controller, USB, Firewire is all connected) is connect with the PCI-bus.
The UMA architecture is a successor of the MPC106 (aka crackle) chipset (one chip) and can run at 100 Mhz..
The succesor of the UMA 1 chip will be the UMA 2 chip which supports 133 Mhz SDram and DDRram.
Second, it will also support AGP 4*.
G4's are mean scientific machines (Score:3)
Re:Missing Logic? (Score:1)
Re:If it costs $18K, it's NOT a supercomputer (Score:1)
Hmmm, sounds cool. (Score:1)
No. It means it isn't a SUPERcar (Score:1)
Re:Finally, Linux on useable hardware. (Score:1)
>Winodws owns >80% of the market, a windows person
>will attempt to setup the mac and there ignorance
>will lead to an unstable Platform.
And more often that not, Apple claims that you the only setup their machine needs is to plug it in and turn it on. (There is no step three!
Given that they market their platform as ideal to ignorant users, and most Mac zealots tout the fact that you don't need to be skilled to set one up, this claim seems VERY suspect.
Not to mention that my support days were spent supporting VARs, many of whom had only ever sold Macintosh.
>The error reported is IRQ Conflicts. I have
>personally worked on this for a long time. I have
>consulted "experts" with windows. The problems
>have never been solved, so I have to hack around
>the problems.
Congratulations. You're a rare case. I spent a year and a half on the general PC support line and got only ONE call with an IRQ conflict, out of around 80-100 a day.
Given the list of hardware, I'd guess its either an OS issue, a BIOS issue or broken hardware, rather than a dearth of interrupts.
>Then, on top of that I tried to hook up my new
>digital Camera through USB. What a joke. After
>calling the cameras tech support, they stated
>that I need to isolate the IRQ for the USB
>device. Well that is all well and good, but
>I seem to be out of IRQ positions. So basically I
>am trying to cram 10 pounds of crap into a 5
>pound bag. Nice...
Tech support being stupid is not a fault of PC hardware. One of the advantages of USB is that only the controller needs an interupt, not the device.
>And yes, some of us want the computer on our desk
>to be "cool" looking. We do not want to feel that
>the thing we just spent a pile of hard earned
>money is relegated to _under_ the desk. We want
>to show it off. Let people look at it.
Yes, but a supercomputer is hardly a desktop.
>Depends on what you are testing it against. If
>you are doing Photoshop/DV for a living, then the
>G4 is BETTER than an Athlon. Tests have shown
>this to be true. If you are doing other things,
>then the Athlon would be faster.
And those tests are of a piece of software which lacks optimization for the Athlon.
Given that we're dealing with a platform being used to run custom scientific applications though, it can be tuned for either processor.
Tests which bench optimized code vs optimized code show the Athlon to provide MUCH better performance at each processors current clock speeds.
>Again, I am paying a bit more for two things,
>both of which I prioritize over raw speed. I am
>paying for a Nice looking Box and an User
>Interface that is both pleasing to my eye and
>logical for _me_ to use.
When building a cluster, you'd be a fool to pay for a 'Nice Looking Box' over raw speed. The point of a Beowulf cluster is performance.
Likewise, the interface is a non point, as you will not be using these machines directly. If you want, build the control software on MacOS and have a ball.
>Considering My PC does not seem to want to work
>well at all, then I would have to disagree with
>the second part of your Sentence.
Your broken PC does not invalidate my experience with thousands of users and hundreds of PCs.
>Remember, other peoples Milage may vary from
>yours. Feel free to debate. Point out problems
>with the post. State your case, but when you make
>wide sweeping statements be able to back them up
>with Facts not religous war type hype crap.
Funny, thats what I thought I was responding to.
Re:If it costs $18K, it's NOT a supercomputer (Score:2)
Re:Wouldn't the G4 be a better option? (Score:1)
heh. gummy savers.... (Score:1)
hehe...hrmmm...8 $1,500 gummyservers running linux
hrmm...uhhh..8 $1,500 gummyservers running a free OS
uhhh...ummm...$12,000 worth of gummiservers
ummm...$18,000 - $12,000 != 0
well, hrmm...that's interesting...I guess maybe with cusomization, and stuff like that.. i dunno...
probably off-topic...
MODERATE DOWN
imacs??!? (Score:1)
I've actually seen a few, and I've even worked (albeit very little) in Photoshop on one, and I must say that I'm not impressed with their performance at all. My dual Celery is by far faster then the iMac I used, and roughly for the same price... But for the same amount of money, I have a _lot_ more ram, better v-card, etc. So where is the "better competitive price/ performance/ watt ratio?" Maybe they have the
Not to mention that they are by no means upgradeable (try plugging in a DVD, a CD writer _and_ a Zip drive into an iMac all at the same time). And if anyone is going to mention USB, I really don't think USB comes close to even the cheapest Adaptec Ultra SCSI card w/ SCSI disks on it.
The only reason that I can find for this application of iMacs is publicity. Nobody has even thought of doing this before (and why would they?), so it has to make news. And that's fine by me I guess. I'm just very curious who is going to buy such a thing.
Re:Hey, bitch (Score:1)
but something shall be released.
Way too expensive (Score:1)
Finally, Linux on useable hardware. (Score:1)
Linux in cluster mode on a bunch of iMacs is a great idea- not only is it aesthetically pleasing [arranged in a circle, they'd look quite eye-catching compared to the average beige boxen], yon iMac currently goes for about 800$ at the minimum end. That's eight hundred bucks for a machine with four external parts [box, power cord, keyboard, mouse], runs on a PPC chip [WAY cooler, far more stable, need I go on?], is a quick setup and, at the bottom end, is running Linux on Apple hardware, ackowledged by many as some of the best parts out there.
It's the cheapest reliable computer package out there, and you're never going to have to worry about hardware driver conflicts or a thousand other setup nightmares common to the PC end of things. - but good luck keeping those CDR drives closed! The iMac is great for this: it doesn't NEED a big screen, and the machines really, honestly, suck ass as kiosks without extensive internal surgery [which is really not easy to do, I can tell you that!]
Huzzah. Now someone who can code needs to port more *nix apps to PPC architecture- I'd be running linux right now were it for a few minor details such as that.
Re:More info from Terra Soft (Score:1)