🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <42600@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> brooks@maddog.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks) writes:
>I do think that "big systems" will adopt Killer Micro technology.
>Supercomputer system integrators which don't will not survive the
>the coming decade, and I personally doubt that they will survive the
>next 5 years.  No one will survive the attack of the Killer Micros,
>except those system integrators and users who choose to ride the wave.
>
	You sound like your definition of super computer is static. As we
	all know micro, mini, main and super are defined in terms relative
	to the others. Traditionally every level snarfs ideas from the
	level above as technology enables it to be done. Whatever technology
	a micro uses can obviously be used on a faster and more expensive
	scale in a super, why this is not already the case is probably due
	to the fact that the supers aren't threatened enough yet.

>Yes, but I am not talking about a low cost work station here.  I am referring
>to a system with a respectable number of Killer Micro processors.  Vendors
>are integrating high performance and high reliability disk systems out
>of commodity disks just as vendors will integrate supercomputers out of
>Killer Micros.  These disk systems are appearing on boxes in a price
>range which is dirt cheap compared to traditional supercomptuers but which
>is much more expensive than what what you would put on a desk.

	Hmmm, parallel OS technology, REAL stable stuff once you get above
	a dozen or so CPU's... Again, anything in the I/O systems can easily
	be improved upon in the next level up. The need for a computer with
	abilitys beyond the killer would still exist, the killer would still
	not eliminate the super. The super wouldn't necessarily be a bunch
	of micros thrown together in parallel either.

>you are ignoring the high
>performance I-O systems that are appearing on Killer Micro powered systems.
>These high performance I-O systems are built of commodity disk drives
>and are much cheaper, while being faster, than high performance disk drives
>used on supercomputers.
>I think that that cold weather has gotten to your neurons.
>
	NOPE, I have high powered heaters for the neurons. B^) In order for the
	killer micros to beat out supers, supers would have to stand still in
	Parallel OS, I/O subsystems and implementation technologys. I sincerly
	doubt that will happen, the scale will shift as it always has. Micros
	will still be less powerful than supers, the definition of the terms
	makes that certain.

	There will always be super computers, there will just be more people
	using killer micros since that's all they can afford for what they
	need to do. But by the same token, there will always be a few
	problems that the killer micros just can't quite cut, this is
	where, by definition, supercomputers are usually used.

	As far as commodity disk drives go, let's hope our banks don't decide
	that commodity disks are more cost effective; OOOOOPS, lost a bit
	or two there Joe... Problem solved by volume shadowing and error
	correction technologys but geez that sounds familiar from somewhere...
	Again, the techniques for correction and detection can be improved
	if your data warrents it.
	
	To overuse yet another big boy phrase: One way or another, you get what
	you pay for.

	The killer micros will always be a notch or two below the killer supers
	in the real world. Just because supers haven't been threatened enough
	from below doesn't mean they won't bite back hard when they are.

	The 6000 in the original article was a VERY state of the art
	pre-production CPU, compare it's performance to a VERY state of
	the art pre-production super and see what the results are.

	Let's continue the banter via e-mail, I'm sure comp.arch is sick of
	us already.

			-Rob