Linux Desktop Clustering - Pick Your Pricerange 199
crashlight writes: "A Linux cluster on the desktop--Rocket Calc just announced their 8-processor "personal" cluster in a mid-tower-sized box. Starting at $4500, you get 8 Celeron 800MHz processors, each with 256MB RAM and a 100Mbps ethernet connection. The box also has an integrated 100Mbps switch. Plus it's sexy." Perhaps less sexy, but for a lot less money, you can also run a cluster of Linux (virtual) machines on your desktop on middle-of-the-road hardware. See this followup on Grant Gross's recent piece on Virtual Machines over at Newsforge.
Expensive (Score:1)
Re:Linux not ready for the desktop [was Re:Expensi (Score:2, Interesting)
Cost of upgrading what? Did you even read the article? This is a CLUSTER, not your run-of-the-mill desktop or workstation. I could get linux to easily run on an old 486 motherboard that is somewhere in the bottom of my closet.
If any OS is expensive due to upgrades, it is definately Micro$oft OS's. Can you see Windows XP running on a 486 33 mhz? I thought not.
Additionally linux cost a LOT less to administer by IT shops than Microsoft operating systems. With Microsoft operating systems, you have to *click* here, *click* in this text field,etc. I could have ipchains up and running fast than you could have NAT running on Windows2000.
However, this cluster is a great solution to a lot of problems. It would definately free up colocation rack space, and make it easier to do virtual hosting.
r00tdenied
Re:Linux not ready for the desktop [was Re:Expensi (Score:2, Insightful)
Again, not true. Casual users will be forced to read HowTo manuals and man pages [linuxdoc.org]. If you follow the link into the several pages, you'll see that some of them are *years* old!
Ipchains is not *years* old as you put it, so the howto's definately can't be. Many of the howto's are old, but that is becuase a lot of things are backwards compatible with the newer kernels.
r00tdeniedmmmmmmmmmm (Score:1)
Virtual vs physical (Score:1)
Re:Virtual vs physical (Score:2, Insightful)
By the fact that they are all incased in the same box, rather than connected via a switch, it has less distance to travel. I don't know that 5 feet of CAT5 could make that big of a difference. On the otherhand, they could have designed a different way of bridging the systems and dramatically reduce latency. In either case, it is intriguing.
Virtual macines??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Virtual macines??? (Score:1)
Yes, I just said BEWOLF CLUSTER of these boxes.
Cluster == sexy (Score:1)
Re:Virtual macines??? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Virtual macines??? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Virtual macines??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Many large compute problems are embarassingly parallel, i.e. the same calculation needs to be repeated with slightly different input parameters. There's basically no interprocess communication, just a little forethought about filenaming conventions, total disk and memory usage, etc.
Execution of such tasks reduces essentially to a simple loop:
foreach parameter_set
rsh nodeN myprog outfileM
end
For those programs that actually run a single instance of the code on several CPUs, you have to be acutely aware of how many nodes you use. Your code has its own limits on how well it scales to multiple CPUs, and your cluster imposes limits on how well (in terms of latency and bandwidth) nodes can communicate. Very few codes in this world scale well beyond 64 CPUs, especially not on run-of-the-mill clusters with plain ethernet interconnects. Fortunately, it is trivial to readjust the number of nodes used for each invocation of the code.
Lastly, virtual nodes cannot easily simulate the behavior of real nodes. Again, it's the interconnect latency and bandwidth. When it comes to supercomputing, only trust what you have run and measured on a real life setup with your own code and input data.
Re:Virtual macines??? (Score:2)
Re:Virtual macines??? (Score:1)
Or better yet, cut out all the overhead of running "virtual" processors and install MOSIX. Then just run your 1024 processes simultaneously. The processes will transparently migrate to the least busy nodes to load balance. Add more machines to the MOSIX cluster (while the cluster is up) and the load will be further distributed. Need to take your workstation out of the cluster temporarily? Just force a removal and the processes migrate off to other machines...
Re:Virtual macines??? (Score:2)
Good plan. There's a large BUT however....
There are two sources for N processors not being N times as fast as one.
First there is the communications overhead. If you have 1024 virtual processors, running on 32 real processors, there are going to be about 32 programs running and communicating on one processor, while they could've gotten by without communicating at all...
Also, the problem may not be divisable in 1024 equal chunks.
If you write your software to scale to 32, there is going to be a parameter that says how many processors there are already. So adjusting it to 64 is not going to be hard.
But test-running on a small (but virtually large!) cluster before running it on the "real cluster" could allow you to guess the magnitude of both "performance impacting issues" before buying time on the expensive "real cluster". So there certainly is a point in doing it that way....
Roger.
Hey (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Hey (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hey (Score:2)
They do. It's called Grid [ibm.com] computing. Now that Qwest can shoot 400Gbit/s over 1,000km or something insane like that, supercomputing centers are connecting clusters with faster links than your 64-bit PCI bus.
Re:Off Topic? (Score:1)
Re:No, but.... (Score:1)
- 8 - 800MHz Celerons? (Score:2, Flamebait)
So, it's about equal to my dual Athlon 2000+?
Re: - 8 - 800MHz Celerons? (Score:1)
2*20008*800
40006400
Of course, the dual athlon kicks butt for many applications (I know, I use one!), but it all comes down to the needs. What would be cool is if low cost dual athlon boards (ala tyan tiger) were substituted (8*2*2000 = 32000, or 5 times faster)... but then the whole thing would just melt with the heat. I do like the embedded flash/diskless aspect of the system, though. Its a simple cluster in a nice box.
Re: - 8 - 800MHz Celerons? (Score:3, Interesting)
*borrowed from Tom's Hardware*
Linux Compiling Test
3.35 minutes for a Athlon XP 2000+
14.2 minutes for a Intel Celeron 800mhz
(now, here's where we stretch it)
Figure 1.7 minutes for a dual Athlon XP 2000+, 50% of the other time.
1.7 x 8 = 13.6 minutes
But, who really compiles with a cluster, really?
It'd still be faster....At least on a few benchmarks, and at least in theory
Wow... what a markup! (Score:4, Funny)
Why is Timothy badmouthing... (Score:3, Troll)
I know I'll get modded down for this, but here's an example:
Posted by timothy on Tuesday January 22, @02:45PM
JackBlack tells us about the "unbelievable deal you can get at KMart [bluelight.com] on all their overstocked computers and periphials! You won't believe the kind of prices on these things! I don't know about you people, but I'd rather swallow Draino than buy boxen from Big K! But, shit, whatever, I guess.
Timothy is his own conflict of interest.
What is happening to Slashdot these days?
--SC
Re:Why is Timothy badmouthing... (Score:1)
Re:Why is Timothy badmouthing... (Score:1)
Now as far as bias, what I find interesting is that
It made all the other news sites, along with articles complaining about server capacity. (VS.Net is like a 3 Gig download)
I was at least expecting an article titled "Microsoft servers don't hold up to massive load!"
Re:Why is Timothy badmouthing... (Score:1)
Re:Why is Timothy badmouthing... (Score:1)
under engineered. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry, but for that price this is way under engineered. The origonal bewulf cluster was made with components on par, for the day, as the celeron modle of the redstone, for far less. If your going to spend the time and money building and marketing systems like this, they could have done a better job. They suck mobos in a big case and eth linked them togeather. Call me crazy but I think for that much money you could get a small backplane, 8 industrial PC's (powerpc/copermine/whatever on a pci card each w/its own memory) toss em in and spend the rest of your "engineering" budget, making a patch to the kernel for reliable communication over the bus, instead of slow eth connections.
besides with the speed advantages shared memory brings to multiprocessing a quad xenon would probably outpreform this.. deffinately a quad proc ultrasparc but those are pricey even used...
Re:under engineered. (Score:3, Insightful)
hardware cost would be lower.
But what about the cost of your time, in terms of
dealing with vendors, putting machines together,
testing them, integrating them, and testing again?
I'm guessing these machines come with support, too,
though I can't tell because their web site is
Slashdotted.
Re:under engineered. (Score:1)
People seem to be so obsessed with placing a value on things that they forget that some people do stuff like this for a hobby, and therefore it is more likely to cost money than pay for itself. By definition a hobby shouldn't really pay for itself, otherwise it's a business, aka work.
If I were to build one, it wouldn't be work. But, then again, maybe I'm one of the few people who spend my day working on computers, then go home and work on computers for fun.
Re:under engineered. (Score:2)
But for some reason chose a midi tower, rather than a 4U rackmount.
and for the price . . . (Score:2)
My new workstation (yes, it's finally coming, for those whohave been wondering; the purchase order goes to main campus today):
$4800: 2xAthlon 1900, 2gb ddr.
My memory and bus are significantly faster. I believemy total processing power is equal or close under most applications.
Then I get a few things that aren't in that bundle:
2x18gb cheetah 15000rpm u160
4x 9gb cheetah 15000rpm u160
21" sony monitor & video card
scsi cdrw
would I really get any more from this unit???
Re:and for the price . . . (Score:2)
Re:and for the price . . . (Score:2)
also, it seems more likely that one big cache wouldhave what you need than a collection of little ones *all* having it.
I also noticecd that I used 9 words for each array element in my stucture. *doh*. 8 would have exactly alligned it in terms of memory fetch operations (one or two; I forget)>
Anyway, isn't the 1900 athlon somewhere in the broad range of 3 800 celerys?
hawk
Re:and for the price . . . (Score:2)
Celeron 800 data cache is 160 kB. Octal machine has 1280 kB total, twice that of the Athlon.
Even if Celeron cache transfer rate is half that of Athlon (don't have exact numbers), total throughput will still be double.
It depends on the workload. If you can parallelize the cache load, it can be a huge win. If all the caches are flushed by the same constant data that won't quite fit, it doesn't help much. As usual the problem and how you parallelize it are just as important as the hardware.Re:under engineered - AND SPAM (Score:1)
Besides, why in the hell is timothy spreading this??? The guy is promoting this "personal cluster" by spamming several newsgroups. Last week he hit a number of groups including comp.os.linux.hardware, comp.parallel, and comp.graphics.rendering.misc. That by itself ought to be more than enough to convice you not to buy for this guy!
Re:under engineered. (Score:2)
First, I'm guessing you meant quad-Xeon and not quad-Xenon, cause why would you want to have 4 instances of Xenon text editor [proximity.com.au] running on your desktop, or 4 atoms of the element Xenon [maricopa.edu].
Second, there is the misnomer that Ultra-sparc boxen are rediculously expensive. It's just not true. The place where I work recently purchased a new shared solaris server - quad-proc Ultra2 4x300mhz w/ 1 Gig of ram and 2x18 gig scsi drives. It only set us back about $1500. That is NOT MUCH in the world of shared website hosting. Plus, it compiles things a lot faster than, say, our P4-1.5 Ghz, despite the 300 Mhz advantage.
High end hardware is doable, and most people don't need much, especially considering that a Sparc IPC (25-ish mhz w/ 24 megs of ram) runnig solaris 7 can host 200 web pages easily, and handle 3 million hits a month. Web serving is *not* difficult, and it doesn't take a lot of power, just a proc that can switch between processes quickly and efficiently. It's poorly-written CGI that takes power.
~z
Re:under engineered. (Score:2)
Password:
Sun Microsystems Inc. SunOS 5.7 Generic October 1998
You have new mail.
(censored):root> mpstat
CPU minf mjf xcal intr ithr csw icsw migr smtx srw syscl usr sys wt idl
0 16 0 86 45 44 70 0 1 2 0 98 1 1 1 97
1 16 0 88 1 0 72 0 1 2 0 102 1 1 1 96
2 16 0 115 213 13 67 0 1 2 0 100 2 1 1 96
3 16 0 95 67 67 64 0 1 2 0 97 2 2 1 96
Tell me how to get more detailed system info and i will, i don't know how to just print out exactly what the procs are and speed ratings
Re:under engineered. (Score:2)
(censored):root> dmesg
Jan 22 21:47
cpu0: SUNW,UltraSPARC-II (upaid 0 impl 0x11 ver 0x20 clock 296 MHz)
cpu1: SUNW,UltraSPARC-II (upaid 1 impl 0x11 ver 0x20 clock 296 MHz)
cpu2: SUNW,UltraSPARC-II (upaid 2 impl 0x11 ver 0x20 clock 296 MHz)
cpu3: SUNW,UltraSPARC-II (upaid 3 impl 0x11 ver 0x20 clock 296 MHz)
SunOS Release 5.7 Version Generic 64-bit [UNIX(R) System V Release 4.0]
Copyright (c) 1983-1998, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
mem = 1048576K (0x40000000)
avail mem = 1029668864
Ethernet address = (censored)
root nexus = SPARCengine(tm)Ultra(tm) CycleQUAD (4 X UltraSPARC-II 296MHz)
pci0 at root: UPA 0x1f 0x4000
pci0 is
pci1 at root: UPA 0x1f 0x2000
pci1 is
etc.etc.
I rest my case. BAM.
~z
Re:under engineered. (Score:2)
~z
Rack Density (Score:2, Interesting)
Terrasoft, briQs, PPC, 4-8 nodes... (Score:5, Informative)
They offer a 4-8 node tower running 500 MHz G3 or G4 CPUs and drawing "roughly 240 watts per 8 nodes (less than a dual-processor Pentium-based system)." Quite impressive.
Re:Terrasoft, briQs, PPC, 4-8 nodes... (Score:2)
and $1500 for the case
so for $4500 you get 2 count 'em 2 g3 nodes (no altivec)
$2k for the g4 node (same speed & mem)
so for an 8 node cluster, you are looking at $17,500
makes the rocketcalc machine look like a bargain, no?
(ok, ok, the briq is better engineered, but still...)
Here's what I'd much rather see (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see this as the same as a system-on-a-chip. With those, you're integrating video and audio. I'd either rather NOT see that integrated at all or have a portion of this new CPU combo thingy incorporate a DSP or FPGA region(s).
Whoa, time to put down the crack pipe.
Re:Here's what I'd much rather see (Score:2)
Most of this (apart from the RAM with the CPU) sounds like a Sequent Symetry. There's also the Vax cluster. Where processors (with RAM) and storage controllers connect to a 16 (IIRC) way star interconnect.
Both of these are over a decade old technology. So something similar which fits in a box one person can pick up is probably overdue.
only 100mbps? (Score:4, Interesting)
Also a bit pricey, but there would be some cost advantage in reduced footprint for some environments.
-Restil
Re:only 100mbps? (Score:1)
Re:only 100mbps? (Score:1)
Re:only 100mbps? (Score:2)
hell we use that kind of setup for spitting 24 mpeg2 streams out for commercial insertion from pentium 166's
Re:only 100mbps? (Score:2)
gigs at vt dot edu
Re:only 100mbps? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes start here
http://linux-ha.org/comm/
this is used in the linux HA system extensively. Xenix and Unix has it also.. No version of NT has this ability nor any Microsoft product. Maybe someone has written a driver for NT4.0 but I doubt it.
Re:only 100mbps? (Score:1)
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/ALPHA/linux-ha
this will get you started. searching for linux SCSI communication and start digging.
Re:only 100mbps? (Score:2, Insightful)
Depends on the application in question. There are many parallel processing tasks which do not need massive communication between processors. Effectivly each processor simply gets on with it's task on it's own.
No problem for the right application (Score:1)
Re:only 100mbps? (Score:2)
Heh, there'll always be a bottle neck.
Re:only 100mbps? (Score:2)
Re:only 100mbps? (Score:2)
Re:only 100mbps? (Score:2)
Re:only 100mbps? (Score:2)
Besides, due to inefficiency in TCP/IP you can't really get the full 100mb/sec, it's mostly limited around 80mb/sec for the better NICs.
Re:only 100mbps? (Score:2)
KLAT2 FNN [aggregate.org]
Note to moderators: above link refers to Linux, AMD processors and Beowulf clusters! Do the right thing!
already posted (Score:1)
Explain this to me (Score:1)
So much for eating your own dogfood... (Score:1)
Virtual clusters? (Score:2)
So you're suggesting that I divide my machine into 8 virtual machines and then cluster them for uber fun? Figuring the extra latency, wouldn't it be faster to just leave it alone?
Re:Virtual clusters? (Score:2)
If you need to upgrade the kernel on your email server, you can just reboot that virtual machine and leave your database, proxy, etc. servers untouched. If a process goes wild on your database server it'll only screw with that service and not your email, proxy, etc.
Clustering under VM is....pretty dumb (Score:3, Informative)
vservers assume that a machine has resources avaiable and that no one instance is consuming 100% of the systems resources. Application built for utilization under a cluster would most likey CONSUME 100% quickly and easily, otherwise why run them under a cluster in the first place ????
I do like their monitor applet, its pretty coll for basic cluster managment/monitoring.
At the same time all you people complaining about price...lets see
800mhz cele w256 meg each MB, NIC and whatever storage, lets say on the cheap $300 each
4 350 Watt PS $100
Ok a really cool case and PS
Time to load software, lets say weve done it before and it take 8 hours
Physical Assembly and testing 5 hours
My bill rate and personal time is worth 120/hr
$1560
Hardware $2400
Power Supply $ 100
Mildy cool case$ 100
THAT COMES TO 4160, Hell, add to that I dont have to build the SOB AND it comes under warranty , you betch you A** Id buy one of these
PLEASE think before you gripe about prices...
Looks like a deal to me
PS, Kernel version is 2.4.12 from what I saw on their link to products showing a screen shot Ayeee.....
Re:Clustering under VM is....pretty dumb (Score:1)
For those of us who's time is worth a little less than $120/hr, it's a pretty good deal to just build our own.
I'm building my own 6 node, Duron 950 for a total hardware cost of $1300. That could have just as easily been 8 nodes for $1700, had I the money to spend on two more nodes.
Cool software (Score:1)
Yeah yeah network speed blah blah. Let a man dream!
Re:Cool software (Score:2)
The Needed Ingredient (Score:2)
OK, the price for these kinds of things is really nice and low. Low enough to make anyone in the numerically-intensive computing arena really want something like this.
(However, I probably wouldn't want one of these as my desktop machine if the power supplies took more current than a typical wall outlet, if it made as much noise as a helicopter taking off, and if heated up my cubicle to 92 F.)
But the key ingredient in my mind is making these distributed boxes more conveniently usable, much like those 64-way big boxes from Sun and SGI.
How far along are MOSIX, Scyld's products, others(?) that make these distributed clusters have a nice Single System Image?
I can crash it (Score:1)
#!/usr/bin/perl
how_about_a_beowolf_of_these();
sub how_about_a_beowolf_of_these {
fork();
how_about_a_beowolf_of_these();
}
Re:I can crash it (Score:1)
Do-it-Yourself Cheap Clusters (Score:3, Funny)
I've been building my cluster from various remaindered/cast-off/refurbished machines I find. Computer Geeks [compgeeks.com] is a good source.
Load balancing is frelling difficult, but I've been doing some solid parallel programming work that translates nicely to "real" clusters. I'd love to buy one of the Rocket Calc boxes -- but I can make a darned nice box for a lot less money with more processing power, if I'm willing to have cables and such all over the place.
The only real cluster-related problem I have is my lovely wife. She's one of those people who want things to "match" (so why in frell did she marry me?), and my "heterogenous" cluster just isn't very aesthetic. She just doesn't understand that the cluster's job is to compute, not to look pretty!
Then again, the Rocket Calc machines are attractive, and the color would go with the living room furniture...
Re:Do-it-Yourself Cheap Clusters (Score:2)
You mean we weren't supposed to all understand that you really meant "FUCK" when you said that? Try it. Repeat after me. FUCK. F-U-C-K. FUUUUUUCK! Feels good, doesn't? Wheh, now aren't you glad you've got that out of your system?
I knew you would be.
>:-/
C//
If you need to get something out of your system... (Score:2)
"Frell" is a word used on the TV series Farscape; it has the nice ability to replace many different cuss words with on catch-all phrase. For example: "To frell with it!" or "Frell you." And using "frell" avoid those nasty negative moderations that can so bruise my tender ego.
As for "fuck", "hell", and other cursatives: I make sailors blush, youngster; I've been coding so long, I've had to invent or borrow new cuss words because I wore the old ones out. I'm bored with "fuck" the word "although not the act, mind you), and am looking for new, fresh alternatives.
site slashdotted, here's google cache (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:q2egeLKmoVQC
How does it do itt? (Score:1)
Two Questions (Score:2)
(2) Why is it taking so long for someone to make the obligatory "Imagine..." post?
whatever. (Score:2)
As for the value of this product, I see it clearly. Not all computational problems need high data throughput between nodes. And their Redstone-A product gives you an 8 node PIII 1Ghz cluster with 4GB of ram for $6000. And all the networking set up and ready to go. Give it to your Scientist and they don't need to know jack about network or configuration, they just treat it like another unix workstation.
When I think of the ~ $20k each we spend on Sun and SGI workstations for our scientists, I cringe. This I wouldn't (won't?) think twice about buying.
a desktop renderfarm (Score:2)
gimmie 2 of these, an AVID, and a $200,000.00 camera and lens you've got the next ET on your hands... (Nooo not cheech and chongs Extra Testicle get your mind out of the gutter)
it's getting there where the general schmuck has the power that hollywood does.
Re:a desktop renderfarm (Score:2)
SGI flashbacks? (Score:1)
To me, this almost looks like a combination of various old SGI systems.
So THAT makes it COOL.
Re:SGI flashbacks? (Score:1)
Picture Gallery [sgiaddict.net]
http://www.sgiaddict.net/sysdoc.html
There's a better way... (Score:2)
If I had the money, I'd be doing this myself. Instead, I've got a rack full of 4U AT cases with dual PPro 200mhz machines instead. The one advantage to having full sized motherboards (with PCI slots) is that I'm installing triple-channel-bonded ethernet so I get gigabit ethernet bandwith, without paying gigabit prices.
Thought for the day... (Score:2)
That'd give you 2 processors per chunk. By stapling four chunks together, using MOSIX, you'd get the same as an 8-proc SMP box, without the hyper-expensive motherboard.
Now, this is where it gets fun. (Yes, I've been reading up a bit on this.
I don't know what the "default" multiplier is, but I'd guess it's probably x16, or thereabouts, given the speed of the rest of the system. In which case, if you threw in a 1GHz clock (I suggest oven-baked, as they taste better), you'd get 16 GHz on the processor.
Now, THAT kind of ramp-up is not going to be easy. Chips run hot as it its, and if you plan on overclocking an Athlon by a factor of 8, you can expect to fry eggs on the surface. As for the poor RAM chips.... those are REALLY going to suffer!
My guess is that if you strapped pelziers onto all the chips, immersed the entire system into some synthetic, non-conducting fluid that you can super-cool to, say, -135'C (there's some stuff 3M makes that'll handle it), and you devised some way to keep it that cold, the chips might survive the experience.
Might. I'm not even going to say "probably". To the best of my knowledge, no overclocking or supercooling experiment on conventional PCs has gone to that extreme. The only ones that came close (a NZ project involving pouring liquid nitrogen into the case) trashed the disk drives and BIOS.
On the other hand, I've been checking up on the tolerences of components, and what you COULD build, if money wasn't an issue. The technology for an 4x2 MOSIX/SMP cluster, overclocked to 16 GHz and still running -does- seem to exist. (The keyword is "seem" - most chip specs are calculated, not actually measured, according to the data sheets.)
Now, I suspect that it'd cost a damn sight more than $4000, just for the parts, even if you could mass-produce such a monster (assuming you had the engineering skill to build it in the first place), or even find anyone crazy enough to buy one, given that it'd probably be more cost-effective (and certainly safer) to go with an IBM mainframe at that point.
On the other hand, kernel compiles would be quick.
Re:Thought for the day... (Score:2)
The fastest processor out there (in terms of sheer power, not mere MHz) is the Athlon XP 2000+.
I thought the IBM POWER4 processors were still out front..
Re:Thought for the day... (Score:2)
Anyone spending this kind of money on a cluster is likely to be doing serious number crunching. Now, some types of number crunching don't mind posibly letting a wrong answer slide through somewhere (IE - in a render-farm, you might get a bad pixel). Other environments, where calculations are all interdependant, a single bad number could make all the computation worthless (the old "A butterfly flaps its wings in Tokyo and we get another John Katz article" story).
Besides, no point in spending the time designing & testing this monster OCed box, when you can just buy a few 8-way Xeons, or call Sun/SGI.
Oh well. (Score:2)
Oh well.
The other day, I saw an auction on eBay for an SGI Octane. The price was over 100,000 bucks. Looking at the pictures, I could tell why: It included a rack with a bunch of really fancy stuff on it, and an SGI Octane. That is why I consider sexy.
Actually, here is what I really want. I want to have several of every brand of computer, running all the operating systems available for each brand. That way, I'll be able to access software and information for any of them. It'll cost a ton of money, and that's money I don't have, but hey, who said you can't imagine stuff?!
Oh well.
Build server (Score:2)
--JRZ
Claims about VMs (Score:2, Interesting)
this machine is nice. (Score:2)
Marketing personal clusters (Score:2)
Re:Is there a real market for this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Can you imagine (Score:1)
My Bad!
Re:1U servers anyone? (Score:1)
this is really cheap for what they are selling. you cannot reproduce it for less.
Re:1U servers anyone? (Score:1)
Add a couple bucks for a switch....
Re:Sexy...? (Score:2)
What's not sexy about box?
Oh, you meant like a computer...I was thinking of something else...
Re:Possible SGI killer? (Score:2)