Virgina Tech to Replace Current G5s with Xserves

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
According to a report at Slashdot, and commented on by MacRumors and others, Va. Tech is to replace the G5's with new, cooler running and smaller X-Serves. This arrangement was purportedly made when they first purchased the G5's. Makes sense, as Va. Tech needed to get a system up and running as soon as possible to enter into the competition that eventually proclaimed their cluster as the 3rd fastest computer setup in the world. I can see Apple taking back the G5's, refurbishing them and adding a special plaque noting that the computer was once part of the Va. Tech "Big Mac" cluster, or something to that effect. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would want one of those 1100 computers at a special reduced price!
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 58
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    no way... that would be a HUGE waste of money and time...



    apple would NOT give them the first batch of dual 2.0s only to take them back later...



    and there wouldn't be much of a performance increase by going to the Xserve... besides they just want cycles... not too much concerned about reliability... the Xserve would be overkill for them...



    sure it would save a lot of space, but they already set it up...
  • Reply 2 of 58
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    link?
  • Reply 4 of 58
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Paul

    no way... that would be a HUGE waste of money and time...



    I don't know if Apple would do this or not, but it's at least possible that swapping all of those PowerMac G5s for Xserve G5s could help Apple promote the Xserve, especially if they can show benefits like lower power and cooling requirements. Apple would at least gain the general promotional value of associating Xserves with the world's third fastest, and best bang-for-the-buck super computer.
  • Reply 5 of 58
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    IF apple were to do this (and I really think it would be a waste of time for VA tech) I hope they have the forsite (especially if it was part of the original plan to keep at least SOME of the node together (or break it up into 1 rack units...)



    were the G5s BTO'ed in any way?



    also, if they were planning on just giving them back to apple... why didn't they (did they?) save the boxes?



    thats a lot of restocking to do... and it will cost $$$...



    I still don't see it happening... but I will admit it is possible...



    Quote:

    Actually it is a coincidence...This power upgrade has been planned for months and is actually the completion of previous power upgrades. My understanding of the Xserves is that they will be getting them at some point...but not immediately (as in the first 1100). The current rumor is that the 1100 destop g5's will end up in some part at the math emporium (which is currently a large computer lab built in an old department store and houses ~500 older macs among other things).



    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12, @02:31PM (#7954953)



    VT is using a proprietary interconnect that requires PCI-X cards to be installed in each machine. It would be a pain to open up all those PowerMac boxes, take the interconnect cards out and re-install them into the G5 XServes.



    As others have pointed out, the amount of time and effort that was spent to build the custom racks, put everything together and make sure it works is probably worth more than the value of the machines at this point.



    Moreover, even though they may be able to fit more than 3X the number of G5 XServes in the same amount of space, even with the 90nm processors, the resulting complex would need much more power and generate much more heat...



    G5 XServes would be a much better fit for adding a new cluster to the existing one or building a new compute farm instead of one that is only 6 months old.



    couldn't have said it better myself...



    maybe they will get to trade them in after 2 years? How often do they do that supercomputer list?



    because of those expensive PCI cards and the enormous labor it would take to rip them out and either give them back to apple (if the Xserves had them prebuilt) or install them into the new Xserves would be enormous... even if it was "free" it would take a long time and there would be a lot of damage to the units just based on handling so many of them...



    oh and this slashdot link is better (it is just the parent comment)
  • Reply 6 of 58
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Apple is currently spending millions of $ in advertising. The virginia cluster was a free advertising, with an excellent return.



    If Apple really want to enter in the server market and in the cluster market, it will be a great logical step. Apple could make an agreement with the virginia tech in order to have some expertise, and in exchange they will help the virginia tech.



    A supercomputer based upon the Xserve and their ECC memory will appear much more serious and reliable than the original one. Apple is really interested by cluster and has developped several technologies for it, and made a special version of the Xserve for clusters. I am sure that this developpements costed some money.



    I can see a new cluster of Xserve now ranking at the second place
  • Reply 7 of 58
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Despite the benefits of ECC memory, it would be a bad idea for the sys admins at VT to upgrade their cluster. No matter how simple of a swap it may seem, unexpected things always happen when completely changing the architecture of something this complicated. Clusters can be quite finicky and there isn't a support line or manual to consult when something goes wrong. Instead, you're left with days or even weeks of down time while IT guys madly scramble to figure out what went wrong. For instance, it could take days to track down ttl timeout issues on such a network. There isn't a reinstall cd or a 'checklist for success' when dealing with super computers.



    While the swap to xserves would be 'neat', ?neat? is not the concept you want governing the administration of a multi-million dollar cluster.



    Server room rearrangement alone would cost tens of thousands of dollars. New, racks, new shelves, new conduits, and at least a few thousand hours of labor?



    Finally: It might actually make more sense for VT to use desktop machines. It will be easy to sell those nodes when the cluster is dismantled or upgraded. This is a new concept in supercomputing, nodes which run a desktop OS in a desktop enclosure. Given the relatively high resale value of Macs, VT stands to recoup much of their capital investment.
  • Reply 8 of 58
    dmband0026dmband0026 Posts: 2,345member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dfiler

    Despite the benefits of ECC memory, it would be a bad idea for the sys admins at VT to upgrade their cluster. No matter how simple of a swap it may seem, unexpected things always happen when completely changing the architecture of something this complicated. Clusters can be quite finicky and there isn't a support line or manual to consult when something goes wrong. Instead, you're left with days or even weeks of down time while IT guys madly scramble to figure out what went wrong. For instance, it could take days to track down ttl timeout issues on such a network. There isn't a reinstall cd or a 'checklist for success' when dealing with super computers.



    While the swap to xserves would be 'neat', ?neat? is not the concept you want governing the administration of a multi-million dollar cluster.



    Server room rearrangement alone would cost tens of thousands of dollars. New, racks, new shelves, new conduits, and at least a few thousand hours of labor?



    Finally: It might actually make more sense for VT to use desktop machines. It will be easy to sell those nodes when the cluster is dismantled or upgraded. This is a new concept in supercomputing, nodes which run a desktop OS in a desktop enclosure. Given the relatively high resale value of Macs, VT stands to recoup much of their capital investment.




    Exactly. Thats pretty much what I was going to say in argument against this. Except, without a lot the the technical jargon that difiler used. In a few years VT can sell off the G5s and go with a faster version of the PM or a faster X Serve. Remember, the G5 will be at 3.0ghz+ by the time Big Mac has breathed its last. It might even be on a 60nm proccess by that time too. There would be more hassle than anything to do this now. It would kind of make the world wonder why, after taking the third spot on the top 500 list, VT quickly dismantled their supercomputer.
  • Reply 9 of 58
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    An upgrade would make some sense. If the room was built with enough extra space, some or all of the new cluster could be assembled while the original machine was still at work. Secondly, the saving in space would allow them to expand the cluster at some point in the future.



    I could see this happening, but I'm not holding my breath.



    EDIT: Anyone have any idea how large an identical cluster would be if it were Xserves rather than PowerMacs? How much space savings would there be?
  • Reply 10 of 58
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    If it ain't broke...
  • Reply 11 of 58
    nebagakidnebagakid Posts: 2,692member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    If it ain't broke...



    the update to Mac OS X 10.3.2 and It will be!
  • Reply 12 of 58
    geobegeobe Posts: 235member
    If I were the admin, here is how I would do it.



    As new students come into the school, they sell the G5 towers unit by unit in the student store or to the individual departments who justify a need to access the supercomputer. Each time unit is farmed out, the admin buy a G5 xServe and add it to the cluster. Over a period of a few years the whole campus has G5 towers and the supercomputer has xServes and a who lot of extra space left over. Then they can start adding to the supercomputer bit by bit till they have twice the supercomputer they had before.
  • Reply 13 of 58
    crusadercrusader Posts: 1,129member
    I could see a slow phase out of the G5s, 10 a month here, 10 a month there, but nothing on the order of a large magnitude. You could then distribute the old G5 units to students through the student store, and put them on faculty desks to provide for workstations (and then Apple makes a killing on monitors and such).
  • Reply 14 of 58
    wmfwmf Posts: 1,164member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Anyone have any idea how large an identical cluster would be if it were Xserves rather than PowerMacs? How much space savings would there be?



    If you could put 42 Xserves in each rack, it would be a factor of 4-5 space savings. But 16KW/rack is pretty high.
  • Reply 15 of 58
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    Five three bar fires runnig flat out, in about the same space. Is that for one of those standing cupboard 42U racks?
  • Reply 16 of 58
    Quote:

    Virginia Tech cluster to use G5 Xserves



    By Nick dePlume, Publisher and Editor in Chief

    January 15, 2004 - Virginia Polytechnic and State University will upgrade its massive Power Mac G5 cluster to the new Xserve G5, sources close to the project said.



    Think Secret contacts -- the same ones who enabled us to exclusively break the story on the cluster in August 2003 -- said that Virginia Tech will trade in the 1100 G5 towers that make up its Terascale supercomputer cluster, and replace them with rackmounted Xserve G5s, which Apple announced earlier this month at Macworld Expo/San Francisco.



    The rest of the story is here.
  • Reply 17 of 58
    I hope no one else already did this but it's been confirmed that virginal tech is upgrading to xserves: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atech_apple_dc

    Quote:

    SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University will upgrade its supercomputer that uses Apple Computer Inc. (Nasdaq:AAPL - news)'s PowerMac G5 computers with Apple's recently introduced Xserve G5 servers that have two chips in each box, the university said on Tuesday.



    The new system, which went online toward the end of last year and which Virginia Tech said was the most powerful supercomputer at any university in the world at the time, will be completed by May.







    By moving to the thinner servers, the supercomputer will consume less power and generate less heat, said Srinidhi Varadarajan, assistant professor of computer science, college of engineering, at Virginia Tech.







    "It cuts the system's size down by a factor of three," Varadarajan said. "The new system will take much less power and generate less heat and free up space."







    The current supercomputer that uses 1,100 PowerMac G5 desktop computers occupies 3,000 square feet.







    Apple's G5 chips crunch 64 bits of data at a time, compared with the now-industry-standard of 32 bits found in the vast majority of personal computers and servers.







    If laid on its side, the PowerMac G5 is about 7 inches (18 cm) tall. By comparison, the Xserve is about 1.75 inches high, said Alex Grossman, head of marketing for servers and storage for Apple.







    "They're able to rack these in a much tighter and higher density manner," Grossman said.







    The price of the upgrade has not yet settled on, but Varadarajan said it would be minimal compared to the cost of building a new supercomputer from scratch.







    Asked what would become of the 1,100 PowerMac G5 computers being retired, Varadarajan said: "We're working on getting them very good homes."



  • Reply 18 of 58
    I can see it now...



    To Go To Good Home: slightly used Supercomputer.

    Video of said computer (39MB Mov)
  • Reply 19 of 58
    And they all when I posted the original Slashdot story here.
  • Reply 20 of 58
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacsRGood4U

    And they all when I posted the original Slashdot story here.



    All ? : no



    I wrote this :



    Apple is currently spending millions of $ in advertising. The virginia cluster was a free advertising, with an excellent return.



    If Apple really want to enter in the server market and in the cluster market, it will be a great logical step. Apple could make an agreement with the virginia tech in order to have some expertise, and in exchange they will help the virginia tech.



    A supercomputer based upon the Xserve and their ECC memory will appear much more serious and reliable than the original one. Apple is really interested by cluster and has developped several technologies for it, and made a special version of the Xserve for clusters. I am sure that this developpements costed some money.



    I can see a new cluster of Xserve now ranking at the second place
Sign In or Register to comment.