Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 16:01:23 -0400 From: Larry Lile <lile@stdio.com> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Subject: Re: Cluster Computing in BSD Message-ID: <337B6B93.167E@stdio.com> References: <199705151553.IAA22312@conceptual.com> <199705151725.KAA15126@phaeton.artisoft.com> <199705151815.MAA01989@rocky.mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Williams wrote: > > > > The difference between "could" and "does" is the > > > reason for the failure of (nearly) every business unit that sold > > > highly parallel/cluster systems. > > > > Except Goodyear. And Thinking Machines Corp. And Cray Computing. > > And Cray Research. And Fujitsu. And... > > Hmm, how many of these are still in business selling highly parallel > systems? Sounds like failure to me... > > Nate How about IBM SP's and SP2's (read DeepBlue/DeepBlueII). These machines are based on both SMP and "share nothing" aproaches. Each node is connected to a internal high speed network and the nodes The "thin nodes" are just a single processor 120MHz machines, and the "high nodes" are (up to) 8 processor SMP machines (135 MHz 604 PowerPC's). But they do have high speed busses, up to 160 MB/s. Their approach was to make very good SMP and single processor systems and then link them using a "share nothing" paralell management system. This obviously works well, just ask Kasparov. I admit I am biased, because I am an admin on an SP, but a lot of the support used for these could easily be reproduced on FreeBSD machines. For more information on the SP's: http://www.rs6000.ibm.com/hardware/largescale/#topic5 Larry Lile lile@stdio.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?337B6B93.167E>