| |||||||||||||
The triumph of Linux as a supercomputer OS (Royal Pingdom)The triumph of Linux as a supercomputer OS (Royal Pingdom)Posted Jun 25, 2009 5:35 UTC (Thu) by jgg (guest, #55211)In reply to: The triumph of Linux as a supercomputer OS (Royal Pingdom) by gdt Parent article: The triumph of Linux as a supercomputer OS (Royal Pingdom)
More critically their LINPACK score wouldn't be very good (at least relative to the number of cores they have). By HPC standards Google does not have a sufficiently high performance network. It is no accident that InfiniBand commands a considerable share of the list. 30% overall, >50% of the top 10, and the *ONLY* open interconnect in the top 10 at all.
For instance the first Ethernet system (well, actually an Ethernet/IB hybrid) is number 16, with 30240 Nehalem 2.5GHz cores gets only 168TF, while number 10, with QDR IB gets 274TF out of its 26304 2.8GHZ Nehalems.
(Log in to post comments)
10GbE is not so bad, realy Posted Jun 25, 2009 17:13 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Google uses 10GbE in clusters and so can easily reach top500, but to top it? Unlikely - their systems are designed for completely different use-case... 500'000 cores in hundred datacenters with non-trivil topology is not very LINPACK-friendly material...
10GbE is not so bad, realy Posted Jun 25, 2009 17:26 UTC (Thu) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link]
LINPACK, well
I mean, if it were to run properly segmented programs that do not rely on online operation, such as BOINC and the well-known Seti@home, would make top500 look different.
10GbE is not so bad, realy Posted Jun 25, 2009 18:30 UTC (Thu) by joib (guest, #8541) [Link]
Yes, and?
If anything, LINPACK is frequently criticized for nowadays being a rather poor representative of real supercomputer applications, that in most cases emphasize network and memory subsystem performance to a much higher degree than LINPACK.
|
|||||||||||||