New XServes are on the way.
When I had heard, that VT was going to use XServe G5's in there redo of the original "Big Mac" supercomputer, I was surprised that all they were doing was saving space, for the most part. Now this story on ThinkSecret Yes, Apple will be coming out with a Rev B XServe G5.
Why do I think this, because if they were not, VT would have their machines already.
Why do I think this, because if they were not, VT would have their machines already.
Comments
Also, I've seen in a couple of articles linked from the Bigmac site that they'll be saving 2/3 (or was it 1/3?) of their rack space. If that's true, don't you think they might have plans to significantly increase the number of nodes? It would be easy to bump HP from the #2 spot with a few more nodes...who knows, maybe with 3300 DP nodes they could take #1? Wouldn't that be a relatively small cost for Apple to make serious waves in HP computing? (assuming they offer the Xserves at a big discount) And hasn't Apple been pushing more of that kind of stuff lately?
I was always confused by the financial deal going on with this cluster. The guy at VT specifically made note of the fact that they were paying full price (I think he mentioned $2999) per node, which sounded crazy at the time. Apple gives huge discounts to bulk higher ed orders, even ones that don't result in tons of good free publicity. Why would VT pay 3k per node? Maybe part of the contract says they'll get xxx number MORE Xserves during the upgrade, working out to a per node price in line with normal edu discounts?
who knows! but i'm very excited to see what comes from this. Also, there's an interesting reference on the bigmac site about "system management solution - to be determined" or something. I wonder if that might be an old reference to Apple's Xsan stuff? I don't know, but considering Apple's Xsan page has a section specifically on "Storage for large computational cluster" I'd be surprised if VT didn't end up being a sort of proving grounds for all of Apple's new, great enterprise stuff.
Apple gave them information on upcoming products. Remember the good old 2.5 Ghz PPC 970fx? Maybe, or maybe faster. Was it not previously rumored that Xserves where to be bumped to 2.5's in short order until the IBM difficulties.
Last year VT was one of the first customers to recieve the G5 PM's, that project gave Apple more good press than money can buy. So why isn't VT at the top of the list this time.
Dual G5 Xserves are shipping. So why has VT been waiting so long for theirs? Because Apple is going to speed bump them and VT is going to challenge for the Fall ranking at the top spot. Move over earth shaker (intended) here comes VT & Apple.
Quite a space savings. Or a helluva lot more processor power in the same space, with the additional cost of the additional processing power, of course. Apple ain't gonna eat it after all.
Here's a pic to illustrate:
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Have you seen the layout at VT? The PowerMacs are basically sitting upright on rack shelves. So eight PowerMacs 4 high by 2 wide fit in one standard rack, whereas you could put (theoretically) 42 xServe G5s in a standard rack (minus switching equipment, ups, etc).
Quite a space savings. Or a helluva lot more processor power in the same space, with the additional cost of the additional processing power, of course. Apple ain't gonna eat it after all.
Here's a pic to illustrate:
...
I agree. Of course, I still think Apple would be wise to give them as many Xserves AT COST as they want. If VT could take the #1 spot, that would be HUGE for Apple. That would really upset the entire HP computing field.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Have you seen the layout at VT? The PowerMacs are basically sitting upright on rack shelves. So eight PowerMacs 4 high by 2 wide fit in one standard rack
They custom built the original racks. They weren't standard.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Have you seen the layout at VT? The PowerMacs are basically sitting upright on rack shelves. So eight PowerMacs 4 high by 2 wide fit in one standard rack, whereas you could put (theoretically) 42 xServe G5s in a standard rack (minus switching equipment, ups, etc).
Quite a space savings. Or a helluva lot more processor power in the same space, with the additional cost of the additional processing power, of course. Apple ain't gonna eat it after all.
Here's a pic to illustrate:
As I said they will save space, but I do not believe it will be 66%. I think 40-50% would be more accurate. If they can put 2200 XServes in there they are doing good. But twice as many machines only gets you 2nd place as the list stands now. They need more crunch power. They will get some from the 970fx vs 970 with like clocked processors, they will also get more effiency with the arcitecure of the Xserve vs the PowerMac. But those two things and double the processors still only gets you second place.
Originally posted by oldmacfan
As I said they will save space, but I do not believe it will be 66%. I think 40-50% would be more accurate. If they can put 2200 XServes in there they are doing good. But twice as many machines only gets you 2nd place as the list stands now. They need more crunch power. They will get some from the 970fx vs 970 with like clocked processors, they will also get more effiency with the arcitecure of the Xserve vs the PowerMac. But those two things and double the processors still only gets you second place.
G5's are 20.1 inches high by 8.1 inches wide. so, as they are mounted in the racks in the picture, for each pair standing vertically, you could have 11 or 12 Xserves. If you were to cut the loops of aluminum off the tops of the G5's so they could fit in a 19 inch rack laying on their sides, you could still mount 4+ Xserves for each G5. No matter how you slice it (ha ha) you can easily mount 4-6 times as many Xserves as G5's in a given rack space.
And assuming roughly 138 racks (at least that many for 1100 G5's) VT could pack them with about 5800 Xserves if they wanted to / could afford to. Even if they left a space after every third Xserve they could easily more than triple the number of nodes. Oh yeah, and how long do you think it would take Apple to deliver 3300+ DP Xserves?
Originally posted by concentricity
[B]G5's are 20.1 inches high by 8.1 inches wide. so, as they are mounted in the racks in the picture, for each pair standing vertically, you could have 11 or 12 Xserves. If you were to cut the loops of aluminum off the tops of the G5's so they could fit in a 19 inch rack laying on their sides, you could still mount 4+ Xserves for each G5. No matter how you slice it (ha ha) you can easily mount 4-6 times as many Xserves as G5's in a given rack space.
And assuming roughly 138 racks (at least that many for 1100 G5's) VT could pack them with about 5800 Xserves if they wanted to / could afford to. Even if they left a space after every third Xserve they could easily more than triple the number of nodes. Oh yeah, and how long do you think it would take Apple to deliver 3300+ DP Xserves?
You only compared two dimensions, what about the third?
As for how long I believe it would take Apple to start delivering 3300+ XServes, well, that is hard to say since VT doesn't have there machines yet. If Apple was not planning a speed bump of the Xserve, why have they not shipped to VT yet. You would think an order that large would get some priority.
As for the space savings and the ability to add more machines, that is only a minor point. I still found it odd that VT would upgrade so fast without a real good reason. Space savings don't add up.
Originally posted by oldmacfan
As for the space savings and the ability to add more machines, that is only a minor point. I still found it odd that VT would upgrade so fast without a real good reason. Space savings don't add up.
I was thinking the same thing -- why upgrade so soon? It doesn't really make sense, unless they are shooting for the #1 spot on the supercomputer list...
Going up to 3300 dual 2GHz G5 Xserves should get them the #1 spot, and if they are waiting for a faster version they could do it with fewer nodes for less money (or add in all the nodes just to really try to keep the #1 spot for a while).
Originally posted by Res
I was thinking the same thing -- why upgrade so soon? It doesn't really make sense, unless they are shooting for the #1 spot on the supercomputer list...
Going up to 3300 dual 2GHz G5 Xserves should get them the #1 spot, and if they are waiting for a faster version they could do it with fewer nodes for less money (or add in all the nodes just to really try to keep the #1 spot for a while).
first, the space savings is NOT a minor point. You've obviously never worked in enterprise IT. And the question about why would they upgrade so soon is a bit backwards...from the beginning of the project, VT wanted Xserves (not Power Macs) but Apple hadn't finished the Xserve G5s yet. VT had specific budget and timeline marks for this project, and worked out a deal with Apple to get Power Macs as an immediate fix, with the condition that they would then get Xserves upon availability.
No, I don't have any inside info about these, and there's a little reading between the lines, but anyone who spends an hour reading the various articles and interviews about this cluster will see what I've just said.
So, oldmacfan or whoever suggested that VT implies 970fx Xserves coming at >2.0GHz is off base. There's NO causual relationship there, nor any inferences to be made. Yes we'll see 970fx's above 2 GHz at some point, in some hardware. But the fact that Apple hasn't delivered all of the DP Xserves (2.0GHz) to VT yet, and whatever you think about rack space, doesn't say a d@mned thing about Apple being about to release 2.5GHz Xserves. Sorry.
""You only compared two dimensions, what about the third?""
As for your belief that I do not understand space savings, your way off base. I have read as much as I can find through the web. If it is even a semi legit news source Google news finds it for me. Then there are all the sites that I find using multiple search engines. So yes, I have read quite a bit on this project from the very beginning. I have sought information and consumed it. Image the fact that we have different oppinions on this matter.
Now get out of your two dimensional world and answer the question.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Have you seen the layout at VT? The PowerMacs are basically sitting upright on rack shelves. So eight PowerMacs 4 high by 2 wide fit in one standard rack, whereas you could put (theoretically) 42 xServe G5s in a standard rack (minus switching equipment, ups, etc).
Quite a space savings. Or a helluva lot more processor power in the same space, with the additional cost of the additional processing power, of course. Apple ain't gonna eat it after all.
Here's a pic to illustrate:
Funny thing is I just saw pics on the VT site that have 4shelves high by 3 G5's wide in each rack. As in this pic.
http://don.cc.vt.edu/assembly/IMG_2354.JPG
Height: 20.1 inches (51.1 cm)
Width: 8.1 inches (20.6 cm)
Depth: 18.7 inches (47.5 cm) = 3044.547 cubic inches
XServe size and weight
Height: 1.73 inches (4.4 cm)
Width: 17.6 inches (44.7 cm)
Depth: 28 inches (71.1 cm) = 852.544
Now PM/XS=3.571132 this how many XServes fill the space of one PowerMac, so if 1100 PM's were in that room, then maybe 3928 machines will, except for the fact that you need additional switches and routers and UPC's and cooling equipment. Whether or not that same space can hold near 4000 machines is harder to figure. If density is too tight, too much heat will be created. Also that depth factor is important in how many rows of racks you can have in the room. Actual viable inroom server density will drop do to all of these factors.
http://www.top500.org/list/2003/11/#
So if VT had 3300 XServes at 2.0Ghz with the little data we actually know the machine would still fall short of the present #1.
The first Big mac had a Rmax of 10280 and a Rpeak of 17600 if nothing changes except density of machines you get Rmax of 30480.
For speculation lets say that before they took down the machine, their efficiency increased to 66.7 percent ( the numbers I listed were dated November 2003) that would be a Rmax value of 35217.6 that puts it in second place.
For more speculation, lets say the 970fx in an XServe is 3% better than the 970 in a PowerMac, this puts us just over the present #1 at an Rmax value of 36274.13.
If they put XServes at 2x2.5Ghz in these machines with the stated increase in efficiency, you now have the fastest Supercomputer on the planet plus 9000-10000 Rmax to spare.
Originally posted by oldmacfan
PowerMac G5 Size and weight
Height: 20.1 inches (51.1 cm)
Width: 8.1 inches (20.6 cm)
Depth: 18.7 inches (47.5 cm) = 3044.547 cubic inches
XServe size and weight
Height: 1.73 inches (4.4 cm)
Width: 17.6 inches (44.7 cm)
Depth: 28 inches (71.1 cm) = 852.544
Now PM/XS=3.571132 this how many XServes fill the space of one PowerMac, so if 1100 PM's were in that room, then maybe 3928 machines will, except for the fact that you need additional switches and routers and UPC's and cooling equipment. Whether or not that same space can hold near 4000 machines is harder to figure. If density is too tight, too much heat will be created. Also that depth factor is important in how many rows of racks you can have in the room. Actual viable inroom server density will drop do to all of these factors.
All well and good.... BUT... The Xserves are 10" deeper than the PMG5's... Say there are five rows with machines both sides, that's 100 extra inches of room space you need to house them.
The volume of the box has less to do with how many you can fit in a room as the depth (or longest dimension) does because you can only fit X number across a wall and Y number between the floor and ceiling.
I'm not saying you won't fit more Xserves in a rack than PMG5's, you will. I'm just saying you may fit fewer racks in the room because they are deeper.
Having not read much about the project I can't say much about the racks being custom made. What I can say is that at my office we have 3 Xserves, an XRAID and under all that in the same rack we have a pair of Quicksilver G4's side by side and they fit very snuggly. I have no idea how the width of a QSG4 compares to a G5.
Originally posted by pooandwee
All well and good.... BUT... The Xserves are 10" deeper than the PMG5's... Say there are five rows with machines both sides, that's 100 extra inches of room space you need to house them.
The volume of the box has less to do with how many you can fit in a room as the depth (or longest dimension) does because you can only fit X number across a wall and Y number between the floor and ceiling.
I'm not saying you won't fit more Xserves in a rack than PMG5's, you will. I'm just saying you may fit fewer racks in the room because they are deeper.
Having not read much about the project I can't say much about the racks being custom made. What I can say is that at my office we have 3 Xserves, an XRAID and under all that in the same rack we have a pair of Quicksilver G4's side by side and they fit very snuggly. I have no idea how the width of a QSG4 compares to a G5.
Umm, that is what I said.