Windows Compute Cluster Server 2003 Released 230
grammar fascist writes "According to an Information Week article, on Friday Microsoft released Windows Compute Cluster Server 2003." From the article: "The software is Microsoft's first to run parallel HPC applications aimed at users working on complex computations... 'High-performance computing technology holds great potential for expanding opportunities... but until now it has been too expensive and too difficult for many people to use effectively,' said Bob Muglia, senior vice president of [Microsoft's] Server and Tools Business unit, in a statement."
Ok, I'll be the first (Score:5, Funny)
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those.
Re:Ok, I'll be the first (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ok, I'll be the first (Score:2)
Bluescreening or running adaware?
Re:Ok, I'll be the first (Score:2)
Re:Ok, I'll be the first (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Ok, I'll be the first (Score:2)
*** Wilhelm Scream ***
Too expensive my arse (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:2)
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:2)
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:2)
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:3, Informative)
That's a pretty simplistic definition of a grid. A grid is typically a pool of resources that is not under a single administrative domain, which is transparently accessible as a utility. Resources on the grid can be clusters, file systems, single machines, etc. I think you're thinking that this would be a distributed application, where everything is under a single administrative domain.
A cluster is going to be managed as a single machine, true. But you're not necessarily even requiring communication t
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:2)
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:3, Insightful)
It really depends on what you are doing with it. If the jobs can run in parallel well then gigabit networking is plenty. I'm looking after a couple of clusters used to interpret seismic data, and in some cases each node only reports back when you want it to do a daily checkpoint of where it is up to in a job.
Microsoft haven't even noticed clusters until now, so it will be a few years before anything of note is written to
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:2)
If you're working at a microsoft shop, and need clustering, this would be a product worth looking at, i don't know how many people that applies to, but i'm sure microsoft must have had customers asking for this, or else they wouldn'
Actually they don't but (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately for Microsoft, the terrain's already covered by Linux and those systems are a moving target with cost-benefit lines that Microsoft CAN'T possibly over take. (The software is $-free and open source and the users WANT collaboration.)
Its a technological death trap for Microsoft. (I can just hear the SNAP.
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:3, Insightful)
As I understand it this sort of thing can be done on just about any kind of computer. And at every university I've ever been to there's usually stacks of old pcs laying around.
As opposed to running email and word, HPC is one of these things where CPU power actually matters. Those 500 MHz PC:s aren't worth the hassle to set up and maintain. Not to mention that heterogeneous hardware (which a random bunch of discarded PC:s probably is) is a nightmare to maintain and program efficiently in parallel.
Most cluste
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of cluster managers also mistake "really expensive, physically robust servers for "will always be working". The complexities of such setups and the general frequency of failure of "high availability" software itself means that the much vaunted 99.99% uptime of such systems is usually based on serious cooking of the numbers, not any metric actually used in the field. After the crops of failures of things like the old IBM deskstar drives, the run of bad tantalum capacitors in Dell motherboards, and other failures that strike entire classes of brand new hardware, it's often better to use older, cheaper, burned in hardware that's had the BIOS updates and the kinks worked out, and save the extra money for the next round of upgrades in six months or a year.
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:3, Insightful)
In addition to the issues with interconnects, raw performance of individual nodes, and heterogeneous clusters...
Reliability becomes a big deal with such old computers. Sure, a well designed cluster will be able to route around a significant number of failed nodes, but computing efficiency will plummet and won't be terribly predictable(often, predictability becomes more important than raw burst performance). You might have 20 nodes working today, 12 tommorow, back up to 20 for a few weeks,
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:2)
If they have to use Vista it'll probably exacerbate the price problem.
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:2)
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:4, Funny)
My first thought was "Oh, they've finally announced the real hardware requirements to run Vista"
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:2, Insightful)
University researchers may have limited funding but a lot of researchers at large corps (oil/med/etc) don't have much trouble getting funds for their research, bear in mind also that not everything is research, for instance engineers may simply want to run some large numerical models etc. I have personally seen parallel processing on windows clusters implemented at a large corp, plenty of funding there.
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:5, Interesting)
When I worked a Motorola, and was part of their LUG, one of the members was talking about a Beowulf cluster they made. Like bad management, they ordered a bunch of desktop PC they couldn't use, and no one authorized their return. So they sat around in unopened boxes until his team decided to make a Beowulf cluster so they could model the electron flow around traces in an 8 layer circuit board before they had them actually pressed.
Each prototype board cost around $10,000 to create. And after that you have to test to make sure the electron field, around a trace, does not affect another trace. Manually it took a long time and is prone to errors. So if there is a problem, it's another $10,000, and another, until you get it correct.
With this Beowulf cluster they could model the electron flow around a trace and then only make one prototype, saving a ton of money and time. And this was all done with an ISO off the net and a bunch of forgotten computers.
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:2)
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:4, Informative)
And I believe the correct answer to your question is Traditionally it has been done by tuned versions of commercial Unices which added to the base cost of the OS over and above the very expensive custom built hardware. Recently Linux has become able to do many of these tasks by similarly being modified at a significant cost running on the same expensive custom hardware. The recent HPC installation using mostly off the shelf parts (they didn't use Ethernet) was the one at Virginia Tech and that ran OS X, not Linux.
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:3, Informative)
Not to many are using Fedora or Slackware on some white box with parts from Best Buy to do HPC. They have been altered to specifically run on hardware that was made specifically for this, and even then management of it is not exactly simple. Not that I believe that 2003 Server will suddenly change that but just using Linux somewhere does not automatically make it the cheapest way.
The "standard" cluster these days is standard rack servers from a reputable vendor, along with a Linux distro tailor-made for clu
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:3, Informative)
High-Performance Linux (Score:5, Informative)
Difficulty, therefore, is NOT a significant factor in all of this. Ok, what about expense? Well, you're right that Linux is free. So is OpenMOSIX, OpenMPI (and many other MPI implementations), PVM (another messaging library), Lustre (a very high-performance network file system), many scientific and mathematical applications for clusters, etc. There are clustering patches for PoVRay, and it's always possible to write a script to have multiple machines render parts of images anyway. I'm sure there are other applications out there that I'm not thinking of right now, and it's only a matter of time before more "mundane" applications can take advantage of clustered environments. They already do, on Plan 9, to some degree. Oh, Plan 9 is also free.
Cost would appear not to be a major problem either, then. Optimizing is the only thing that is in any way difficult, and a GUI system that doesn't let you get to the really fine detail won't help there. More time, effort and money is spent on optimizing than on anything else, and I simply can't see any possible way that an OS that is designed for ease-of-use by hiding the intricacies can in any way help in that.
Re:High-Performance Linux (Score:2)
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:2)
Buy a whole heap of new 64bit systems, and then buy microsoft licenses for them.
Use a whole heap of old 32bit systems, and use a free install of linux on all of them.
Doing it microsoft's way requires significant up-front investment, while linux clusters can be constructed out of a collection of old/spare machines at no cost...
I build a cluster at work a few months ago, it was built using recently-obsoleted desktop systems tha
Re:Too expensive my arse (Score:2)
And for us mere mortals... (Score:5, Informative)
and what about the site licence needed for this baby, huh? For us mere basement-cluster builders, there is a cheaper, open source alternative: The OSCAR Project [openclustergroup.org] ( Open Source Cluster Application Resources). Yes, it runs on Linux, but it is a nearly step-by-step system of setting up HPC-level clusters. It is being used on many 100+ CPU High Performance Clusters around the world, and it is free without those pesky site licences.
Another choice: Rocks Clusters (Score:5, Insightful)
While I don't have personal experience with OSCAR, Rocks is really good. These days, doing a cluster with a "normal" distro is insane. I think MS will have to think long and hard before they come up with something equally easy to install and manage as Rocks.
That being said, I think MS is not targeting Win CCS at academic supercomputing, which has a long history of using Unix/Linux, but rather they want to expand HPC to business customers who otherwise have a 100 % MS environment.
Re:Another choice: Rocks Clusters (Score:2)
Re:Another choice: Rocks Clusters (Score:2)
On the othe
Re:Another choice: Rocks Clusters (Score:2)
MS introduces New Windows 2003 Paper(tm)!
(just watch out for Mosix Scissors)
Re:Another choice: Rocks Clusters (Score:2)
Why is it insane?
Because you'll waste plenty of time solving problems that the Rocks team has already solved. See this presentation [rocksclusters.org]. Especially slides 38 and 47-57.
Re:And for us mere mortals... (Score:2, Interesting)
What the? (Score:2, Insightful)
So the MS solution is cheaper then linux and easier to use the Mac clusters? I don't think so.
Ms is the "me too!" guy from the usenet. Everytime anybody else comes up with something Ms comes in afterwards and says "Me too!".
Re:What the? (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft was considered to be the 'me to servers' of the time, yet as it turns out the MS servers 'did' offer features that the Novell servers of the time didn't and application servers progressed to the point that MS kicked Novell's butt.
The push for application servers also opened the door for *nixes to enter back into the mainstr
Re:What the? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What the? (Score:2)
They still put more into R&D than any other company, even IBM at its height ($$ or %).
This also isn't money flipped to crazy projects or ideas, but to some of the best engineers and theorists in the world.
Everyone here should drop by the Public portion of the MS R&D site once in a while, s
Re:What the? (Score:2)
In order to a
Re:What the? (Score:2)
Yes, they have some clever people working for them, but this is Microsoft we're talking about. They're a business, not an academic institute, and that worries me. And to claim that current R-and-D could be "crucial" in ten years' time is somewhat debatable; Microsoft seems to "make" things "crucial" r
Re:What the? (Score:2)
I disagree. I think Microsoft has changed somewhat but I think they are still the Microsoft of old (same goals, etc.) It's the rest of the world that has changed the most (and thus, perhaps, why Microsoft has lost a bit of their mojo, as you say). There are *many* more computer users today than there were in 1995
Yeah, right (Score:2)
That's a good one. I doubt that the expensiveness of HPC is something that Microsoft is going to solve. MS's marketing folks could have atleast thought of something that *sounds* like it might be true.
And in other news... (Score:5, Funny)
The same folks who operate nuclear accelerators probably don't have that much of a problem operating computers that they need Clippy and pretty colours to help them out "in case they get confused".
Heh! (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft's MPI implementation is, if I understand their materials correctly, based on MPICH (a BSD-licensed Open Source product) with some in-house fine tuning. MPICH is a good reference implementation but is not terribly fast and is getting to be long in the tooth. Far as I know, it doesn't have much in the way of fault tolerance in it, either. LAMPI and OpenMPI are built for speed (although I've found OpenMPI has room for substantial improvement) and have some fault tolerance support. So, they don't seem to be using an amazing architecture.
Last, but by no means least, Microsoft's freebies were limited to an Opteron-specific Windows 2003 Cluster Edition beta and a cookie. By comparison, many others had booklets on what their products did, papers on the theoretical work being done, working demos (the molecular modeler with forced feedback was amazing) and some highly knowledgeable geeks to answer detailed technical questions.
Microsoft may - someday - be an interesting player in the cluster market. Right now, though, they really don't seem to get what it is all about. I'm not trying to bash Microsoft here, they really don't have a product that is useful for the high-performance market, and seem to have the wrong libraries and interfaces for using the servers in a load-balancing, fail-over or distributed storage environment. This isn't to say the other vendors were perfect - I saw many areas that were horribly inefficient and poorly implemented - but rather that Microsoft would have done better to have come back from the show and re-thought what it was that they wanted the Cluster Edition to do.
Too expensive? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Too expensive? (Score:2)
Because nobody ever got fired for going Microsoft? There are certain people that will have warm fuzzies now that Microsoft has offered a solution.
I can't see that the intersection between that group and the one doing computationally-intensive research will be very large, though.
2003=2006? (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually have to applaud the naming move; it accurately lets everybody know that this product is based on Windows Server 2003. It would have been quite misleading if they'd passed it off as " Windows Compute Cluster Server 2006".
Wonder what the meetings between the marketing team and the engineering team were like for this one.
DUPE! (Score:4, Funny)
Absurdity can be profitable" (Score:4, Insightful)
I know many people take exception to that remark. But not everyone knows how to build Beowulf clusters.Some of us thought it was insane when, in the 90s, Microsoft said they were going to enter the server market. Yet here they are. And who in their right minds would run their web services out of IIS? (Then again, Apache now runs on Windows.)
The point is, just because the idea is absurd doesn't mean it won't happen. If corporate consolidations put support for technical computing under the IT department, and support for Linux is considered toodifficult for the IT folks, it's only a matter of time before the decree to port technical computing applications to Windows.
The fact is, M$ has access to software vendors, hardware vendors, and large customers in ways that Linux companies do not. They can create markets where they shouldn't be justified (unless you think all operating systems really require anti-virus software).
I'd love to be wrong about this. But I've finally come to the conclusion that sound technical judgement does not stop absurdity from happening.
Re:Absurdity can be profitable" (Score:2)
eBay for one.
Re:Absurdity can be profitable" (Score:2, Interesting)
The front end web servers are IIS. The business logic is all Java, Solaris and Oracle.
Re:Absurdity can be profitable (Score:5, Insightful)
Something that the majority of Slashdot readers seem not to understand (and with justification) is that purchasing decisions are not rational.
A basic training course on sales techniques will, unless it's totally bogus, emphasise the fact that purchasing is based on emotion, not rationality. Some 80-90% of all sales are emotion-driven and then sometimes post-facto justified by selectively picking facts.
As the world becomes a more complex place and huge amounts of information become available to prospective purchasers there's a kind of paradox emerging that will horrify economists who cling to the theory that perfect markets are based on rational purchasers with perfect information, because the reverse is happening.
Most purchasers are not analytic personalities. People who hang around Slashdot underestimate how much they have (in general) honed their own analytic skills with years of practice while most middle-tier managers in corporates never did. For those non-analytic people, being asked to rationally evaluate a mass of facts and statistics is a SCARY proposition. That's not how they got their job, they did that by looking good in a suit and licking backsides more or less assiduously whilst being ok at judging how the politics are shaping up. Their skillset is way different from yours and they react differently.
The more information you make available to those people, the less they are likely to use and the more they will look around for 'safe' decisions. This will be especially true if their promotion prospects may depend on the outcome. THEY ARE NOT SPENDING THEIR OWN MONEY, it's the company's. Their decision will be based on the likelihood of retaining their job or getting promoted before their mistakes are discovered.
So, figure for yourself. On the one hand some technical guy they distrust because he's smart can 'download an ISO from the interweb and build a cluster myself' or 'buy from Microsoft'.
The first bit of irrational figuring will be 'the Microsoft stuff costs tens of thousands but the geek says it's free - that does not compute, he must be wrong'. The second will be 'if it goes wrong who will get the blame'. Guess the outcome of that one for yourself.
The result is fairly predictable IF you understand the parameters. Microsoft's marketing does understand where it's operating and will be well aware that its customer base is heavily loaded with irrational people. Most likely they are hearing squeals from that customer base asking where Microsoft's compute cluster solution is because 'we want to buy one'. It would be foolish not to give them one surely?
Re:Absurdity can be profitable (Score:2)
No, something that the majority of Slashdot readers do not understand is that purchasing decisions are rarely made on the basis of up-front component costs.
Re:Absurdity can be profitable (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe with things like cars and clothes, but clusters are merely machines to crunch numbers. Kinda like a big calculator, and little emotion goes into designing and using them. Its bang/buck. Thats it.
Microsoft _may_ be able to sell this HPC edition to some PHB out of emotion who is completely clueless and has clueless admins as well, but an OS has little to do with an HPC system. In fact, the less of the OS the better. Most of the time, HPC apps are in user land. The OS does basic memory management and I/O, but that is it.
Most all clusters are Linux. Why? Its good and cheap. You don't need the scalability and robustness of say Solaris, because you (typically, almost 100% of the time) only have one thread per processor. Yes, I know with large SMP machines, the OS can and does matter, but those rarely have the bang/buck ratio of clusters. The two big guys that have done this over the years (large SMP/NUMA/NUMAcc, etc) are SGI and Cray. And both of those companies are hard for cash right now. IBM probably does not make money, or much money off of their large number crunching systems, but they are probably viewed as RND, not a "for profit" good or service (I could be entirely wrong here regarding IBM, but thats my hunch).
I don't know what Microsoft is doing with this product. Like someone else said, its probably just a "me too!" thing. In looking at their "details", they do not mention using desktop machines at night. The is a BIG miss by them, because that would be one of the only things that could even make this a marketable item for an already primarily MS outfit.
The more I think about this, the more silly this sounds. Yeah, I'm an anti-MS guy, but I try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this product seems completely worthless. Actually, now that I learned that this is an only 64bit offering, I believe this is a way for MS to sell a product for beta/stress testing of their 64bit server offerings.
To close this post, from the FAQ:
Q. How does a Windows-based compute cluster compare with a cluster running UNIX or Linux?
A. There is little substantive difference, but UNIX-based solutions should be fully ported to Windows to realize the full benefits of the Windows operating system. There are several differences between UNIX-based operating systems and Windows. For example, I/O operations and threading are different on UNIX-based systems than they are on Windows. I/O intensive applications will benefit from using Windows native I/O APIs rather than UNIX style I/O APIs.
Emphasis mine. The second bolded part is important. That porting is expensive and time consuming. Especially when its common for codes to be 30+ years old and designed for UNIX systems. Sounds like vendor lockin to me. Wow, typical Microsoft.
Re:Absurdity can be profitable (Score:3, Insightful)
should be fully ported to Windows to realize the full benefits of the Windows operating system
I got the impression from TFA that the major feature HPC Edition had to offer was its handy and clean interface with Visual Studio, allowing all the CLI masses to write software for a compute cluster all their own (without having to deal with learning a different platform).
Would this have any effect on the HPC market? I can't see people with existing installations+software biting, but I can see it tempting to
Re:Absurdity can be profitable" (Score:2)
Fortunately, I think the bottom line will prevent the absurd from happening in this case. If I understand correctly, licensing for each node will cost something like $465. That can really add up. And given existing free and relatively mature alternatives (Rocks, OSCAR), I don't see the draw of the MS solution. The main reason MS was able to penetrate the server
Missing the point a bit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Missing the point a bit? (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyway your points are not really that relevent because they are not that true. HPC applications tend to be very complex. They are not the types of applications you are likely to trust to a bunch of VS monkeys who draw GUIs with bound controls and call it an application. As for administration there is a mountain of evidence that Nix administration is cheaper then MS administr
Re:Missing the point a bit? (Score:2, Insightful)
I am just saying what MS uses to sell this (and their other) product(s). If it is true or not is simply not relevant; their way of getting market works like this and it works well, because a lot of people are ignorant to what they buy. Even if the costs is $millions; we see it happening every day in a significantly large company.
I don't work in PR; I am a programmer working mostly on with Java, Ruby and PHP. My background is C and in university I did program a Unix HPC environment (based on Solaris at
Re:Missing the point a bit? (Score:2)
Managers are not influenced by rationality, reason or facts. They are influenced by golf games, junkets, and gold watches. That's how MS wins business. See godaddy for example. MS paid godaddy to switch their parking to IIS.
Money talks and the CIOs love gold watches and golf junkets in Hawaii.
Re:Missing the point a bit? (Score:2)
Try reading a post before you reply to it. It begins with "The idea behind..." and discusses arguments that MS uses to sell, and that the arguments often work and MS gets the sale. At no point does he make the opinions out to be his own, or give any real indication or whether he agrees or not. Just "What MS says == What PHB's like to hear", which is actually true a whole lot of the time.
Re:Missing the point a bit? (Score:2)
Well it would be pretty damn stupid to talk about what MS says to sell their software, without copying what they say, wouldn't it? "The idea behind Windows clusters is that they use giant rats that have been genetically engineered to perform complex calculations" would be ya know... a lie. That's not the idea behind it at all. The idea behind it is that you CAN save money in other areas greater than the cost of the actual OS. Sure, maybe th
Re:Missing the point a bit? (Score:2)
And those "another VS Programmer types will know all the pitfalls that are relevant to distributed computations in a cluster environment because of
Re:Missing the point a bit? (Score:2)
Tell me what's cheaper when your network gets overrun by a nasty virus, that infects all your machines, starting with the servers, and starts wiping drives, and end up costing unimaginable work and funds to even start to fix.
Please don't whine that "That's impossible!!!" or any such BS, it has HAPPENED, and is likely to happen again.
Monoculture sucks.
Thank
Re:Missing the point a bit? (Score:2)
Re:Missing the point a bit? (Score:2)
Will they force you to have IE and outlook express installed on every node without the ability to remove them? If there is a browser installed, then it will be used to browse at some point just because it's convenient to do it from the console rather than walking back to a proper workstation.
Also, does this support serial consoles? Imagine the hassle of having to hook up screens to every node for maintenence...
Re:Missing the point a bit? (Score:2)
Not going to and not supposed to are two entirely different things.
Re:Missing the point a bit? (Score:2)
Re:Most programmers who use HPC (Score:2, Insightful)
And they do, because they are usually managers who use Word and PPT sometimes and play golf
Screen Door on Submarine 1.0 (Score:2)
It's rare that I've heard anything as ridiculous as this. There's nowhere UNIX is more entrenched than in big iron computing. Not only that, but the users-- by definition-- aren't dumb. Microsoft don't have a snowball's chance in hell in that marketing space, and I expect this is going to make Microsoft Bob look like a hot seller in comparison.
A winner is you. (Score:2)
Seriously though. Anyone who buys into this needs to go sit in their failbox and think about what they've done. This kind of stuff has been done on the cheap with Unix and Posix operating systems for ages. I guess this could come in handy for experiments observing how artificially bloated clusters function, though.
Re:A winner is you. (Score:2)
compliance to standards? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Microsoft Message Passing Interface (MS-MPI) implementation is fully compatible with the reference MPICH2"
I guess given the fact that Microsoft is pathetically behind Linux when it comes to high performance computing, they may actually play by the rules here.
Anyone has an insight on this one? Do they have a API lock-in strategy here as well?
Not for everyone... but think ISVs (Score:3, Informative)
Cautiously optimistic (Score:4, Funny)
I blogged about these topics a while back, both MS in HPC and better programming tools for supercomputing:
http://hpcanswers.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArtic
http://hpcanswers.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArtic
Re:Cautiously optimistic (Score:3, Insightful)
The only reason you need a HPC cluster is -- indeed -- High Performance Computing. That means you're going to use as many cycles (or messages passed) as you can get from that $50K+ cluster you've just bought. This easily precludes anything but a fast compiled language like Fortran or C (and no, Java with JIT or
The comment about domain specific languages in your blog for HPC purposes is true: Fortran is exactly that.
Re:Cautiously optimistic (Score:2)
That depends entirely on the physicist. For some clusterjockey physicists, writing code (usually c++ in my experience) is part and parcel with doing the science, because matlab and mathematica (and maple and well, for some people maybe even IDL) are great for some domains, but not all, and c or c++ will get you to those other domains.
Dooom (Score:2, Funny)
I just can't see any hope for MS (Score:3, Insightful)
I just can't see any future in this. There are few things working against MS here:
a) Price. In the large-scale, the price they are asking would mean lesser nodes. Instead of paying for Windows, the customers could just use Linux and add extra nodes to the cluster.
b) source. Yes it does matter. In markets like this, the people running the cluster do fiddle with things in order to make it go faster. They can't do that with Windows.
c) Ease of use. Well, the people who make clusters are usually not morons, so I don't really see any real need for "point 'n click" GUI for creating clusters. And maybe that GUI could impose a bit more overhead to the system? And creating Linux-clusters is relatively easy.
d) Momentum. Linux has companies like SGI, Cray, IBM and others using and improving it. And there are universities involved as well. Those companies really know Linux and they REALLY know HPC. Microsoft has no real know-how regarding HPC.
e) Familiarity. This time, people know Linux. MS is trying to beat an entrenched competitor. MS has succeeded in doing this before, but they did it by undercutting the competition. This time they are competing against something that is free. And their competitor has the advantages mentioned in A, B, C and D, all of which matter to the target-audience.
Wiping the MS tax will double my performance (Score:2)
Put another way: I can run twice as many CPUs and save money if I avoid paying the Microsoft tax. I presume that the win is even larger if the licence says "per CPU".
I can probably run four CPUs and twice the RAM for less $$$, given the real HPC pr
The Win2k3 5-CAL non-HPC version gets me... (Score:2)
For the HPC version, I could probably score a DVD camera and a friggin' partridge in a pear tree as well. FOR REFUSING TO BUY W2k3
<SRACASM>I wish all decisions were so hard.</SARCASM>
MS and serious engineers (Score:2, Informative)
While working at NASA Ames, I found a lot of technical work on Windows by people who are mechanical, electrical, and aerospace engineers. Applications included: structural/mechanical CAD for fabrication, programs to drive test and measurement equipment, MATLAB to derive simulation models, VxWorks embedded RTOS development.
The universal applications that I saw every engineer use were MS Word and PowerPoint. (LaTeX and trof
At least it follows standards.... (Score:2)
it's 2006... (Score:2)
How fast? (Score:2)
Seriously by the time you add virus scanning, spybot removal tools and all the other crapware you need just to keep one running half your cluster clock cycles are gone.
Re:Making up terms? (Score:2)
Re:The First??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why does a 256 or 512-node computational cluster need a copy of Windows Media Player on each machine?
It was then that I realized that MS's approach to operating systems targeted to different applications is not to strip anything out, but to add layer upon layer of extra functionality to their basic "home computing" OS.
Yes, friends, their Windows 2000 computational cluster software does indeed ship with Media Player.
I
Re:The First??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:MS copies Apple AGAIN (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:MS copies Apple AGAIN (Score:2)
Good question. After all, we all know that, to a Mac zealot, something doesn't count "innovation" until Apple has copied it from Linux or Xerox.
Re:GNU/Linux is better for clusters (Score:2)
AND, you get the source. HPC guys are known to tweak the TCP/IP stack and/or drivers. Can't do that even after paying the bargain of ~$500/node for their OS.
Re:GNU/Linux is better for clusters (Score:2)
We tweak the kernel for long-haul IP traffic, certain types of error messages (thousands of warnings per thousands nodes equals gigabytes of logs per day, otherwise), and other things. We also update and build custom drivers for our gige and fiber channel cards. All of which isn't possible with the Windows versions.
We also have support contracts from our software vendors (IBM, Redhat and SuSE) in case we run into issues where some other professional opinions and expertise make a differen
Re:and what is new about????? (Score:2)
It took them this long to get this release out yes, but no one said this is their first cluster software release though, think you might have imagined that bit because it's what you want to read.