Mac Cluster Fvcked

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
<a href="http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,50454,00.html"; target="_blank">The Wired article</a>.



[quote] Researchers on the Human Genome Project would rather use Apple Macintosh computers than anything else to process the massive amount of DNA data they've got on hand -- if only they could.



Unfortunately, Apple's computers are the wrong shape to make into high-power computer clusters. Apple's flagship G4 PowerMacs are powerful number-crunchers, but their upright design makes them unsuitable for stacking into computing clusters ?- supercomputers made from cheap, off-the-shelf PCs.

<hr></blockquote>



And



[quote] "If Apple were to offer a scalable, high-density hardware solution, I would push hard for a platform switch," said Patrick Gavin of the University of California at Santa Cruz Center for Biomolecular Science and Engineering. "The PowerPC architecture is vastly superior to anything else out there in terms of power consumption versus processing power." <hr></blockquote>



And



[quote] The issue of mounting Macs in a rack can be resolved, said Ernie Prabhakar, product line manager for development platforms at Apple. Some researchers intent on using G4s have created specially designed racks for them.



Gavin said Apple's Mac OS X is the other big attraction for scientists. The new operating system is based on Unix, a crash-resistant operating system. "We could probably port all our stuff in a couple of days," Gavin said.



Mac OS X has already made converts out of some scientists.



"I've historically been a PC user and just this month I decided to go get an Apple for the first time," said Rick Stevens, professor of computer science at the University of Chicago and the director of math and computer science at the Argonne National Laboratory.



Stevens is currently on sabbatical from these posts to work on supercomputing projects at the University of San Diego.



It's not just the operating system that won him over -- it was just as much the design of new Mac hardware. "Life is hard enough. It's nice to sit down to a piece of technology that actually makes you feel good to use it," he said.

<hr></blockquote>

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 11
    Yup. It's time for Apple to make some G4 'blade' servers. Yeah baby!
  • Reply 2 of 11
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Researchers would be nice to convert, but actively catering to their needs with specifically designed computers wouldn't be worth it.



    Apple should continue to push the consumer / home space.



    That's not to say they should ignore scientists, but if scientists really want Apples because of superior number-crunching ability, they should use them at home first.



    Scientific computing is unglamorous...Apple wants its computers to be centerpieces, not drones in a large machine closet...for now anyway.
  • Reply 3 of 11
    [quote] Apple wants its computers to be centerpieces, not drones in a large machine closet <hr></blockquote>



    So all that hubbub about mathematica and the DNA sequencing and basically 2/3 of MacWorld was because Apple doesn't want thier Macs to be "Drones"? Hmmmm Steve seemed okay with it at MWSF.



    Mac Guru
  • Reply 4 of 11
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Mac Guru, what else did he have to show? Palm Desktop? The absence of Photoshop?



    They didn't show BLAST off at Macworld. They showed Mathematica...the personal version...for PCs...mostly for students doing class work.



    <a href="http://www.wolfram.com/"; target="_blank">http://www.wolfram.com/</a>;



    I invite you to discover just how many Wolfram Mathematica products are Mac OS X native.



    This is not called actively reachng out to the science community. It's called playing the cards you are dealt. If Apple had to choose between...say Photoshop and Mathematica, which software do you think it would choose? MS Office and Mathematica?



    Steve's keynote had segments in graphics, video, rendering, the consumer space, science, publishing and gaming.



    I don't remember seeing anything about DNA sequencing at Macworld. 2/3 of the show, scientic computing was not.
  • Reply 5 of 11
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong>

    I don't remember seeing anything about DNA sequencing at Macworld. 2/3 of the show, scientic computing was not.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Can't speak for MWSF but at MWNY Apple had a clustering and scienctific conference detailing OS X and the G4 in clustering and render farms and specificic scientific use for research and medicine. The interest was pretty good and Apple said that they may consider expanding it next time.



    Apple has a section of their site devoted to it as well. Apple is interested. But their G4 towers are rack mountable. I guess they are just special racks.
  • Reply 6 of 11
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    The G4s aren't designed for the space conscious. This is about Apple making feature-thin racks...probably 3U or smaller, and with more than two processors, I'd gather. That's not going to happen any time soon.
  • Reply 7 of 11
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong>The G4s aren't designed for the space conscious. This is about Apple making feature-thin racks...probably 3U or smaller, and with more than two processors, I'd gather. That's not going to happen any time soon.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    if so, then I was mistaken. Maccentral made it sound just that they could mount em, not that the size was neccessarily a problem.
  • Reply 8 of 11
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]"If Apple were to offer a scalable, high-density hardware solution, I would push hard for a platform switch," said Patrick Gavin of the University of California at Santa Cruz Center for Biomolecular Science and Engineering . "The PowerPC architecture is vastly superior to anything else out there in terms of power consumption versus processing power."



    Marathon Computer does offer a rack-mount that fits the G4. TerraSoft also makes a product called the briQ, that can be used to cluster Macs.



    But with a cluster the size of the one at Santa Cruz, Gavin said it would still take up too much space. The briQ system can fit 80 processors per rack, but using Rackable Gear's products, 160 processors fit into a rack.<hr></blockquote>



    A typical rack is 19" x 42U. You would need quad-processor 1U rackmount servers to get ~160 processors in one rack.



    [ 02-23-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
  • Reply 9 of 11
    Why aren't the researchers creative enough to find a solution to the problem?
  • Reply 10 of 11
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Because they don't really want them that bad. Plus nobody would want to put 40+ 1U machines in a rack like that. Compaq's Proliant BL 3U racks can fit 20 blades with one CPU each. That's a lot of processors.



    I don't see how Apple could compete right now. You enter the scientific field like this, and you are actually entering enterprise computing.



    That's not to say Apple shouldn't be forward looking, but the best way to approach scientists is to convince them to use the Mac platform at home first. They'll want interoperability/compatibility between their home PCs and clusters next.
  • Reply 11 of 11
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Whoa, I didn't even notice the person I quoted is somebody I've played Myth and Myth II with since 1997. He was even in my order...



    And he's definitely a full-time Mac user, so he's a little biased.
Sign In or Register to comment.