Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: UNIX question: WaitForSingleObject() under IRIX/Linux

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 12:11:12 09/30/02

Go up one level in this thread


On September 30, 2002 at 04:25:47, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>On September 29, 2002 at 23:48:39, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>You're on cocain Hyatt.

I simply defer to my architecture books.  I'm not on "anything" at all
other than "facts"...

>
>A supercomputer by definition is something huge and big that's
>having a tremendeous i/o speed. Not something where just 1 processor
>which is a bit faster.

Correct.  _useful_ I/O speed.  Very few consider having 1000 processors
do independent I/O to 1000 different disk drives as really "useful" as a
general-purpose computing tool.  As compared to the Crays which don't resort
to such inflated claims...





>
>I do not see crays to be very special. If i optimize DIEP for
>a dual K7 then it will be taking only say a factor 10 or so to
>make up for a processor or 32 crays, which never has many processors.



32 is not bad.  A cluster of 8 crays with 32 cpus each is not bad...

Of course you have to work to use them...


>
>Try to compensate for a 512 processor McKinley/Itanium2 SGI machine
>with half a Terabyte hashtables. Nothing matches *that* speed
>if you optimize for it. 512 GIGAHERZ.




512 gigahertz divided by the memory latency suddenly doesn't look that
good.  While a single cray CPU can read 32 bytes and write 16 bytes _every_
clock cycle...  There is little to compare, in real-world applications...


>
>Of course you need to optimize for it. For the Cray you need to optimize
>even more for to get working there. it is clocked at the same
>Ghz like that McKinley is. 1Ghz.
>
>By *definition* a supercomputer is a big computer with a big i/o speed
>and a bunch of processors.

no it isn't, but I'll stick with the literature and let you coin your own
definition as you choose...


>
>If you want to define 32 processor Cray as a supercomputer, that's obviously
>fine. If you don't want to call a NUMA 512 processor SGI a supercomputer
>then you're complete crazy.


Actually, most call it a NUMA cluster.  A big one, but a cluster.  Which is
a _far_ different animal from a true supercomputer...


>
>Best regards,
>Vincent



This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.