Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Andrea Griffin
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 15:13:00 -
[1]
The Top 500 Supercomputers list for June, 2010 was just released. I could have sworn that Eve's cluster was rather high on that list at one time and I can't imagine that it has fallen very far! I took a look through the list cut couldn't find it. Any ideas where Eve sits at the moment, did I miss something in the list, or have I spent too much time watching my new bird feeders this weekend?
|
Cat o'Ninetails
Caldari Rancer Defence League Elysium Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 15:15:00 -
[2]
I think they would need to take EVE down for a day or two to run any benchmarks on it.
My Facebook! |
OPX2
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 15:24:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails I think they would need to take EVE down for a day or two to run any benchmarks on it.
Wait... you mean that wasn't what they did on May 26?
|
Tero Alphaverti
Alphaverti Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 16:00:00 -
[4]
To be honest, these supercomputers are so incredibly powerful that I doubt the Tranquility cluster would even be near the top 100.
I am not saying that it isn't a powerful cluster (comparative to most systems out there), but these are the types of systems that are used to simulate nuclear reactions, look for oil, etc.
|
AFK FAPPING
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 16:14:00 -
[5]
Edited by: AFK FAPPING on 01/06/2010 16:15:51 If you look towards the bottom of the list, from the 300s down, you'll a lot of commercial-use computers. 479 is for "Gaming" located in France, and I'm certain I've read something about TQ being the most powerful gaming cluster...
Edit: 306 - "Computacenter" ... as in "[Arnold] Get to the Computacenter![/Arnold]"?
|
Meiyang Lee
Gallente Azteca Transportation Unlimited Gunboat Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 16:18:00 -
[6]
Originally by: AFK FAPPING Edited by: AFK FAPPING on 01/06/2010 16:15:51 If you look towards the bottom of the list, from the 300s down, you'll a lot of commercial-use computers. 479 is for "Gaming" located in France, and I'm certain I've read something about TQ being the most powerful gaming cluster...
Edit: 306 - "Computacenter" ... as in "[Arnold] Get to the Computacenter![/Arnold]"?
TQ however is sitting in London, England, not france.
|
AFK FAPPING
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 16:22:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Meiyang Lee
Originally by: AFK FAPPING Edited by: AFK FAPPING on 01/06/2010 16:15:51 If you look towards the bottom of the list, from the 300s down, you'll a lot of commercial-use computers. 479 is for "Gaming" located in France, and I'm certain I've read something about TQ being the most powerful gaming cluster...
Edit: 306 - "Computacenter" ... as in "[Arnold] Get to the Computacenter![/Arnold]"?
TQ however is sitting in London, England, not france.
Yeah, so either TQ has been surpassed in the gaming world, it is on the list under some obscure listing, or I need to run memtest86 on my brain and rma the faulty neurons
|
JitaBum
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 16:24:00 -
[8]
Pretty sure it was there, but they don't seem to invest in hardware much anymore. Why? BECAUSE OF DUST
|
Meiyang Lee
Gallente Azteca Transportation Unlimited Gunboat Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 16:25:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Meiyang Lee on 01/06/2010 16:26:44
Originally by: Tero Alphaverti To be honest, these supercomputers are so incredibly powerful that I doubt the Tranquility cluster would even be near the top 100.
I am not saying that it isn't a powerful cluster (comparative to most systems out there), but these are the types of systems that are used to simulate nuclear reactions, look for oil, etc.
TQ consists of a minimum of 100 Blades (See here, and that was 2 years ago), each of them holding 4 Quad core Xeon 7400s (or 6-core versions).
I doubt the TQ cluster is listed on the top 500, because they'd need to take her off line to get her rated for the list.
|
BrundleMeth
Caldari Temporal Mechanics
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 16:38:00 -
[10]
Chatting with several people here I have come to the conclusion that many people think that having servers in a "cluster" makes them somehow more powerful. It does not. All it does is allow you to spread the processing power for redundancy and less congestion. If one server in the cluster fails, the clustering software falls over that node to other servers and spreads out the pain...
|
|
pwym NO
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 16:44:00 -
[11]
Edited by: pwym NO on 01/06/2010 16:45:09
Originally by: BrundleMeth Chatting with several people here I have come to the conclusion that many people think that having servers in a "cluster" makes them somehow more powerful. It does not. All it does is allow you to spread the processing power for redundancy and less congestion. If one server in the cluster fails, the clustering software falls over that node to other servers and spreads out the pain...
You mean like how computers do with their CPU cores? By your logic, adding more CPU cores to a machine doesn't make it more powerful.
|
Lt Angus
Caldari the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 16:51:00 -
[12]
Originally by: BrundleMeth Chatting with several people here I have come to the conclusion that many people think that having servers in a "cluster" makes them somehow more powerful. It does not. All it does is allow you to spread the processing power for redundancy and less congestion. If one server in the cluster fails, the clustering software falls over that node to other servers and spreads out the pain...
please resize your signature to the maximum allowed file size of 24000 bytes. Navigator Shhhh, Im hunting Badgers |
Grez
Core Contingency
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 16:52:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Grez on 01/06/2010 16:52:16 TQ is confirmed to be the most powerful gaming cluster ever created. However, CCP would need to take it down for two days to run benchmarks to confirm this. As this is obviously out of the question, they cannot do it.
FYI, the 'France gaming' cluster you see is the World of Warcraft server cluster - however, they contain one or two 'worlds' per server, they also have to split their farms up for NA/EU distribution, so it most definitely does not rival TQ.
I'm sure Mindstar or someone can come in here and confirm all of this, but for now, TQ is supposedly the most powerful gaming cluster the world has. ---
|
Julius Rigel
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 16:55:00 -
[14]
Originally by: OPX2
Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails I think they would need to take EVE down for a day or two to run any benchmarks on it.
Wait... you mean that wasn't what they did on May 26?
I can't see what else it would be, but it was too late to make the freeze for June, so the May 26 results will be published in July?
|
BrundleMeth
Caldari Temporal Mechanics
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 16:55:00 -
[15]
Originally by: pwym NO Edited by: pwym NO on 01/06/2010 16:45:09
Originally by: BrundleMeth Chatting with several people here I have come to the conclusion that many people think that having servers in a "cluster" makes them somehow more powerful. It does not. All it does is allow you to spread the processing power for redundancy and less congestion. If one server in the cluster fails, the clustering software falls over that node to other servers and spreads out the pain...
You mean like how computers do with their CPU cores? By your logic, adding more CPU cores to a machine doesn't make it more powerful.
You clearly don't have a clue what I am saying or how this works. And no I'm not going to explain it to you. But I have been working with this stuff for over 30 years. I DO know what I am talking about, you think whatever you like...
|
Ogdlin Grafie
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 17:01:00 -
[16]
Will never get on the list as has already been mentioned a server cluster IS NOT anywhere near that of a 'Super Computer' cluster after all they are running Windows ahahah
|
Grez
Core Contingency
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 17:02:00 -
[17]
Originally by: BrundleMeth
Originally by: pwym NO Edited by: pwym NO on 01/06/2010 16:45:09
Originally by: BrundleMeth Chatting with several people here I have come to the conclusion that many people think that having servers in a "cluster" makes them somehow more powerful. It does not. All it does is allow you to spread the processing power for redundancy and less congestion. If one server in the cluster fails, the clustering software falls over that node to other servers and spreads out the pain...
You mean like how computers do with their CPU cores? By your logic, adding more CPU cores to a machine doesn't make it more powerful.
You clearly don't have a clue what I am saying or how this works. And no I'm not going to explain it to you. But I have been working with this stuff for over 30 years. I DO know what I am talking about, you think whatever you like...
Actually, you can spread the load using clusters, increasing the power overall. If an application requires many, many threads to be processed, it can send the jobs to the other blades/nodes, process them, and return the results to the host application. This is definitely an increase in power over a standard server, and this is EXACTLY how the top 500 is benchmarked.
I'm definitely questioning your 30 internet years knowledge of 'this stuff' ;). ---
|
Dan O'Connor
Cerberus Network Dignitas.
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 17:05:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Ogdlin Grafie Will never get on the list as has already been mentioned a server cluster IS NOT anywhere near that of a 'Super Computer' cluster after all they are running Windows ahahah
And Windows reduces spread multitasking in cluster-nodes how, exactly?
(In before Microsoft fanboy, which I am not)
Apply | Sigs
|
Quaristice
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 17:06:00 -
[19]
At number 1....the Jaguar XT5:
|
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 17:10:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Grez Actually, you can spread the load using clusters, increasing the power overall. If an application requires many, many threads to be processed, it can send the jobs to the other blades/nodes, process them, and return the results to the host application. This is definitely an increase in power over a standard server, and this is EXACTLY how the top 500 is benchmarked.
I'm definitely questioning your 30 internet years knowledge of 'this stuff' ;).
Correct, if... TQ was able to do this, but it can't in its current form. Thus, you wont find it on the list, even if the combined TQ hardware would be able to get it there.
|
|
Grez
Core Contingency
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 17:10:00 -
[21]
Those wedges on the top are to make them more aerodynamic so they can run faster.
HAR ---
|
AFK FAPPING
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 17:16:00 -
[22]
Originally by: BrundleMeth All it does is allow you to spread the processing power for redundancy and less congestion. If one server in the cluster fails, the clustering software falls over that node to other servers and spreads out the pain...
You've been "working with this stuff for over 30 years" and think that the only thing clusters are used for is redundancy and congestion reduction? And that this doesn't make them more powerful?
Yes, failover clusters are used for redundancy. They are also made up of 2 nodes. None of the servers on that list are failover clusters.
Yes, there are clusters used for load-balancing that reduce congestion. Instead of being able to run 1000 jobs in a day they can run 2000. They also have more processing power. They are "more powerful" than a single computer by most working definitions of "more powerful"
A cluster of computers will always be more powerful for most working definitions than a single computer of the same type, and will almost always be cheaper than a single computer that is as powerful.
|
Steve Celeste
Caldari Inglorious-Basterds
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 17:51:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Tero Alphaverti but these are the types of systems that are used to simulate nuclear reactions, look for oil, etc.
These days you don't need a supercomputer to look for oil, silly
|
Mashie Saldana
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 18:05:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Mashie Saldana on 01/06/2010 18:05:16 If CCP manage to deploy Infiniband they might end up near the very bottom of that list if they try.
Tranquility compared to a PC migth seem massive, however compared to the systems on the top 500 list it isn't.
|
Letrange
Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 18:09:00 -
[25]
As I recall they have the right hardware, just not enough of it and they are not using the networking technology that they would need to use to qualify. Not to mention the 3 days of down time necessary to pass the benchmarks.
Although TQ could qualify as a supercomputer getting it listed would introduce serious disruption of operations. I can do without the ego stroking thanks.
|
Ranger 1
Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Sodalitas XX
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 18:34:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana Edited by: Mashie Saldana on 01/06/2010 18:05:16 If CCP manage to deploy Infiniband they might end up near the very bottom of that list if they try.
Tranquility compared to a PC migth seem massive, however compared to the systems on the top 500 list it isn't.
Apparently many of the newer folk don't realize that Tranquility has been listed among the top 500 supercomputers in the world for years now.
The only question is whether we have fallen off the list or not, and if so, why?
===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you. |
Terrax Norik
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 18:35:00 -
[27]
How many whine thread would there be if CCP decided to take TQ offline for a couple days to get it ranked? Would it ever worth it? Since TQ continually evolves over time.
|
Xianthar
STK Scientific The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 18:50:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Ranger 1
Apparently many of the newer folk don't realize that Tranquility has been listed among the top 500 supercomputers in the world for years now.
The only question is whether we have fallen off the list or not, and if so, why?
Link? Been playing eve for over 5 years and i've never seen it on there.
The Tranq cluster isn't even close to the TOP500.
number 500 for june 2010 has 5136 clovertown cores with gigabit interconnects.
The 100ish blades that make up tranquility contain a mixture of 2 and 4 cores based on last info from CCP and are of an older architecture. I highly doubt much upgrading has been done considering the lag issues. This puts the cluster at <500 cores with likely gigabit interconnects.
Less than 10% the compute power of number 500 on the list.
If we step back to June 2005 the bottom 20 or so clusters on the list are in the ~256 core range with high speed interconnects. At that time tranq was much smaller, <50 blades and all were dual core opterons, still at 1Gbit or 100mbit interconnects.
Again it was substantially slower at the time than anything on the top500 list.
|
Mashie Saldana
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 18:54:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Xianthar The 100ish blades that make up tranquility contain a mixture of 2 and 4 cores based on last info from CCP and are of an older architecture. I highly doubt much upgrading has been done considering the lag issues. This puts the cluster at <500 cores with likely gigabit interconnects.
The TQ cluster has just over 200 cores in total.
|
Libin Herobi
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 19:04:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Xianthar
Originally by: Ranger 1
Apparently many of the newer folk don't realize that Tranquility has been listed among the top 500 supercomputers in the world for years now.
The only question is whether we have fallen off the list or not, and if so, why?
Link? Been playing eve for over 5 years and i've never seen it on there.
The Tranq cluster isn't even close to the TOP500.
number 500 for june 2010 has 5136 clovertown cores with gigabit interconnects.
The 100ish blades that make up tranquility contain a mixture of 2 and 4 cores based on last info from CCP and are of an older architecture. I highly doubt much upgrading has been done considering the lag issues. This puts the cluster at <500 cores with likely gigabit interconnects.
Less than 10% the compute power of number 500 on the list.
If we step back to June 2005 the bottom 20 or so clusters on the list are in the ~256 core range with high speed interconnects. At that time tranq was much smaller, <50 blades and all were dual core opterons, still at 1Gbit or 100mbit interconnects.
Again it was substantially slower at the time than anything on the top500 list.
Are you trying to reason with Ranger 1??
Seriously, there are better ways to waste your time...
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |