Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

30,000-Core Cluster On Amazon EC2 59

Joining the ranks of accepted submitters, hooligun writes with an article in Ars Technica about a rather large cluster built on EC2. From the article: "The details are impressive: 3,809 compute instances, each with eight cores and 7GB of RAM, for a total of 30,472 cores, 26.7TB of RAM and 2PB (petabytes) of disk space. Security was ensured with HTTPS, SSH and 256-bit AES encryption, and the cluster ran across data centers in three Amazon regions in the United States and Europe."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

30,000-Core Cluster On Amazon EC2

Comments Filter:
  • Imagine the possiblilities. /. on steroids.
  • Let's hope their European nodes didn't use any certs from Diginotar.

    But at least they weren't using RSA tokens for authentication.
  • by certron ( 57841 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2011 @02:54PM (#37458900)

    Before anyone else asks what I was about to, the full title of the article is: $1,279-per-hour, 30,000-core cluster built on Amazon EC2 cloud

    How does that compare to the cost-per-core-hour for other Amazon EC2 offerings? Is this a value meal deal or just a lot of burgers?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by mikeytag ( 1835928 )

      The article said each instance had 7GB of memory and 8 cores. That would translate to the High-CPU Extra Large Instance Type:

      High-CPU Extra Large Instance 7 GB of memory, 20 EC2 Compute Units (8 virtual cores with 2.5 EC2 Compute Units each), 1690 GB of local instance storage, 64-bit platform
      Source: http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/ [amazon.com]

      That instance type will run you $0.68/hour standard or $0.24/hour spot. (US-East Pricing) (Spot pricing allows you to take advantage of unused EC2 instances at a discount. Also worth no

    • It More like a SH!t burger! Wow! The performance is not impressive at all, yet the money there making is. Because the servers they are using are probably IBM POWER7. The article states that last jun 7,000 cores on EC2 was capable of ranking at 232 on the Top 500 list of super computers with a performance of 41.82 Teraflops. So looking over the list and comparing how a 7,000 cores of POWER7 system will do. We see at rank 50 a 6,912 cores of POWER7 with a performance of 212.12 Teraflops. Now lets up the cor
  • Help me understand something here ... isn't EC2 really one gargantuan cluster far bigger than 30,000 cores? So why is it news that it ran a big job? Was there some significant step forward in software that allowed features that were not previously available on EC2?

    • Help me understand something here ... isn't EC2 really one gargantuan cluster far bigger than 30,000 cores? So why is it news that it ran a big job? Was there some significant step forward in software that allowed features that were not previously available on EC2?

      TFA is angled more at the fact that anyone can go out and rent something like this for their own ends.

  • Finally - a computer that can fully handle Windows 8!

    • I know I'm feeding the troll but...

      I'm running the Windows 8 developer preview (64-bit) on a five and a half year old laptop. Granted, I kicked the RAM up to 4GB ($44 shipped from NewEgg) and replaced the Core Duo with a Core 2 Duo (a T5600, $25 used on fleabay buy it now), but it runs well at 1900x1200 on hardware I basically rescued from the dumpster. You need to update your stock lines and stop mindlessly bashing.

  • But, what was their password? So many details about that computer, but no password...

  • How powerful would one estimate linking multiple cloud and, of ten percent of the top 500 supercomputers would be? That would be one massive number cruncher.

    • by mscman ( 1102471 )
      Cloud computing and the Top500 computers are comparing different things. Generally, "Clouds" cannot efficiently run codes you would run on a Top500 machine, and vice-versa. They are large machines serving different purposes.
      • They are actually set up quite similarly, the key difference is that cloud usually uses virtualization while the super computers doesn't so there is about 5-10% slowdown which you have to compensate by using more nodes.
        • by mscman ( 1102471 )
          No, they really aren't. I work on a top 20 machine, and can tell you that attaching this via a high-latency interconnect (read: the web) would completely kill the purpose of using this machine. And no, you cannot just "compensate by using more nodes." Amdahl's law kills that idea right out. I've worked in both "cloud computing" (back when it was known as "grid computing") and HPC or High-Performance Computing. While they are similar in some ways, they are designed to fulfill different purposes and are best
          • Ok so the nodes in the cloud is not connected via Infiniband but by Gigabit Ethernet but what made you think that they where connected via the web? And still I don't think that it invalidates that they are constructed quite similarly. Oh and of course you can offer inifiband clustered nodes as the cloud.
  • Didn't we just read that the US has fallen to #25 on the international speed list? So, is this like serving up Skynet over a 28.8 modem?

  • They should donate a couple of hours a month to curing a disease.
  • Nobody gives two fucks. There's over 2 million registered UIDs on this site. Slashdot isn't some popularity contest. Quit turning Slashdot into fucking Digg or Reddit.

  • You can verify the certificates used with DigiNotar... well.. site looks down... maybe when they are back up...

  • Neat, but for any job that isn't embarrassingly parallel, communication latency and speed will kill you when your nodes are spread across continents. If you're not doing any communication, well then groovy. Usually these large core servers are only 'earning their keep' when you're taking advantage of very fast interconnect hardware and doing things that can't be done by just a bunch of CPUs.

1 Angstrom: measure of computer anxiety = 1000 nail-bytes