Supercomputer to Break Computing Power Record

R

Rich Tate

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
5,955
Sun Microsystems has announced a new super computer codenamed Ranger that will be the fastest machine ever assembled and will debut the first of next year. You could get your own for the low low price of $30 million…oh wait, that’s just for the hardware. :eek:

Sun Microsystems announced today that its hardware will power the largest supercomputer ever built, weighing in with 62,976 CPU cores, 125 terabytes of memory, 1.7 terabytes of disk space, and 504 teraflops of performance.
Click to expand...
 
125 terabytes of memory, 1.7 terabytes of disk space?

i doubt it has more memory than disk space... those two numbers have to be reversed.
 
Wow, that's strange. Tons of power and performance and not even 2TB? Maybe they meant 1.7PB?
 
magnvs said:
125 terabytes of memory, 1.7 terabytes of disk space?

i doubt it has more memory than disk space... those two numbers have to be reversed.
Click to expand...

The numbers are accurate. Supercomputers hardly feature massive storage arrays, the focus is processing power and just muscle.

GJSNeptune said:
Wow, that's strange. Tons of power and performance and not even 2TB? Maybe they meant 1.7PB?
Click to expand...

You don't need 2PB of storage or even 2TB, this is meant to be a performance based machine, hard drives are the last thing they care about on super computers, many nodes will only have one drive, perhaps two depending on the application.
 
Ockie said:
You don't need 2PB of storage or even 2TB, this is meant to be a performance based machine, hard drives are the last thing they care about on super computers, many nodes will only have one drive, perhaps two depending on the application.
Click to expand...

Right, but even the people behind the supercomputer need e-peen.
 
Now we just need to order 16,744 Thermalright Ultra-120s so we can really get some performance out of that bitch! :cool:
 
ockie, i'm afraid you're wrong. i looked up this article that states:

Ranger includes 15,700 of AMD’s forthcoming quad-core processors that have four processing cores each, to make more than 63,000 processor cores, each slightly better than what most people have in their laptop. For those keeping score at home, it also has 125 terabytes of memory, 100,000 times as much as the average home PC. It also will provide: 1.7 quadrillion bytes (petabytes) of disk storage; the system is based on Sun Fire x64 (x86, 64-bit) servers, and has Sun StorageTek disk and tape storage technologies.
Click to expand...

so... ranger's storage is, in fact, 1.7pb, not 1.7tb... which makes better sense to me.
 
I'm just wondering how fast will it play solitare or save a word document. Any benchies?
 
Ockie said:
The numbers are accurate. Supercomputers hardly feature massive storage arrays, the focus is processing power and just muscle.



You don't need 2PB of storage or even 2TB, this is meant to be a performance based machine, hard drives are the last thing they care about on super computers, many nodes will only have one drive, perhaps two depending on the application.
Click to expand...



You're completely wrong check here:

http://www.tacc.utexas.edu/resources/hpcsystems/

its 2 PB for two Petabytes...

P.S.
I know some of the guys on Tacc..And I assure you, they use A LOT of NVIDIAS...
 
"Supercomputer to Break Computing Power Record" not suprised.

Anyways yea... if it was only 1.7 tb on the harddrive then :rolleyes: but if it was 1.7PB then:eek: :D
 
Enduring_Warrior said:
You're completely wrong check here:

http://www.tacc.utexas.edu/resources/hpcsystems/

its 2 PB for two Petabytes...

P.S.
I know some of the guys on Tacc..And I assure you, they use A LOT of NVIDIAS...
Click to expand...


Funny you say that, because that system is nothing what they listed on the site....


Here, let me break it down:


OP Article / Website you linked
First of next year / 2007 (this year)
1.7tb disk space / 2 petabytes disk space
504terraflops / 421terraflops
fastest in the world / "one" of the fastest in the world
125tb memory / 105 tb memory
62976 / 52608 cpus



Try next time to not jump to any conclusions and happily proclaim that your numbers are "Facts". I simply said it's not impossible as many super computers do not feature so much storage capacity as they dont need it.

As you can see, the numbers that you provide vs the article are FAR off, hell, even the dates... so somone is wrong here... perhaps they cut back? Perhaps they added? Don't jump so fast to a conclusion next time :rolleyes:
 
so ockie... are you saying the article i posted is wrong, too?

1.7pb vs. 1.7tb seems like an easy error for any writer to make.
 
No, not any writer. Maybe one who doesn't know much about computers. I wouldn't have made it. After all, the P key is no where near the T key.
 
maybe... but i'm willing to give whoever wrote the piece the benefit of the doubt. how often do you use 'petabyte' in common parlance? seems like an easy slip to me.
 
They need the computer for processing power not storage therefore it has reasonable storage @ 1.7tb.
 
magnvs said:
so ockie... are you saying the article i posted is wrong, too?

1.7pb vs. 1.7tb seems like an easy error for any writer to make.
Click to expand...

Umm pleas re-read my post.

EVERY SINGLE spec was off by a HUGE margin other than the NAME of the supercomputer.


OP Article / Website you linked
First of next year / 2007 (this year)
1.7tb disk space / 2 petabytes disk space
504terraflops / 421terraflops
fastest in the world / "one" of the fastest in the world
125tb memory / 105 tb memory
62976 / 52608 cpus
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension FTW!!! :rolleyes:
 
Jees STFU. The computer's based on CPUs that don't even exist yet. The specs have probably changed numerous times, along with the release date of the Quad Opteron.

Regardless, it would be terribly difficult to dump the contents of RAM if there were 73 times more memory than disk space.
 
Ockie has a good point, a super computer does not need 1.7 PB of storage.

Then again, the smallest HD you can buy today is about 80 GB (and these are hard to find). On the other hand, a fully decked Mobo can hold 4 to 8 GB of RAM. So my guess is that this supper comp will have 1.7 PB of storage and 125 TB of RAM. This way the "maintenance crew" can keep all their mp3, movies and pron collection on one site and still not make a dent in the storage capacity.

Now, don't replay and say "wait, all nodes won't have a HD, only some". I am aware of that. But if you had the science fundation pay for your super computer would you tell them that? <j/k>
 
The typical supercomputer would be linked up with fiber to NAS or direct attached storage in fast arrays. The hard drive is pretty much the slowest component of a computer. Unless they are storing massive amounts of data, they don't need a lot of storage. I can however see the need for large amounts of drive space for advanced stuff like medial, nuclear, aerospace, or government use.
 
It was indeed a typo and the story was corrected guys to relflect the proper info, it was 1.7pb.
 
knew i was right.

damn, ockie who pissed in your cheerios? the specs you're quoting weren't even from the article i posted. perhaps you need to question your own reading comprehension before questioning others'.
 
magnvs said:
knew i was right.

damn, ockie who pissed in your cheerios? the specs you're quoting weren't even from the article i posted. perhaps you need to question your own reading comprehension before questioning others'.
Click to expand...

The link you provided was much more accurate to the OP's initial posting than it was of warriors postings (the one which i debated).


It's funny how you claim you are right and I am wrong when I wasn't claiming I was right to begin with. Perhaps you want to re-read this:

Try next time to not jump to any conclusions and happily proclaim that your numbers are "Facts". I simply said it's not impossible as many super computers do not feature so much storage capacity as they dont need it.
Click to expand...


The thing is, people here are more than happy to jump on the bandwagon "I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG!!!" rather than getting some more information. I was simply saying that if it was a TERABYTE it WOULD NOT be IMPOSSIBLE. Quite hard to understand eh? It not impossible to be a terabyte either, so I don't see how YOU ARE RIGHT and I AM WRONG?

It was an error in the article fed by more errors from the actual pages to people "who had friends working in the center" and I simply supported it saying that it's not impossible.


Rather I should ask, who is stroking your ego?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top