Topic: Microsoft on Supercomputers? (Read 2943 times)

IKV Nemesis D7L · « **on:** May 24, 2004, 11:31:58 pm »

Quote:

Microsoft has launched an effort to produce a version of Windows for high-performance computing, a move seen as a direct attack on a Linux stronghold.

High-performance computing once required massive, expensive, exotic machines from companies such as Cray, but the field is being remade by the arrival of clusters of low-end machines. While the trend could be considered an opportunity for Microsoft, which has long been the leading operating-system company, Linux has actually become the favored software used on these clusters.

Now Microsoft has begun its response, forming its High Performance Computing team and planning a new OS version called Windows Server HPC Edition. Kyril Faenov is director of the effort, and Microsoft is hiring new managers, programmers, testers and others.

But can they match the price/performance of Linux which is already a tried and true solution?

Gambler · « **Reply #1 on:** May 25, 2004, 07:22:45 am »

Ah, but you see they can bring something to the high end platforms that has been severely lacking. Crashes, bugs, viruses, worms.

Those poor slobs have been missing the best part of computing.

IKV Nemesis D7L · « **Reply #2 on:** May 25, 2004, 08:20:33 am »

I was thinking more of two things.

1/ Cost / node. How much will it cost to deploy the windows version on a 1000 node system?

2/ The performance cost of every node running a GUI. Why do nodes that are never logged onto locally need that?

If they did produce a cheap Windows CLI that could be administered remotely it could be an important step in the server room. One of the criticisms of windows (in addition to cost) on servers is the mandatory use of the GUI which adds unneeded processing overhead and a very complex level that can cause more crashes.

How about a D2 server on a CLI version of Windows? Would performance and stability be enhanced?

Gambler · « **Reply #3 on:** May 25, 2004, 09:04:50 am »

Quote:

I was thinking more of two things.

1/ Cost / node. How much will it cost to deploy the windows version on a 1000 node system?

2/ The performance cost of every node running a GUI. Why do nodes that are never logged onto locally need that?

If they did produce a cheap Windows CLI that could be administered remotely it could be an important step in the server room. One of the criticisms of windows (in addition to cost) on servers is the mandatory use of the GUI which adds unneeded processing overhead and a very complex level that can cause more crashes.

How about a D2 server on a CLI version of Windows? Would performance and stability be enhanced?

Exactly my thought. My back office apps are running on an AS/400 using IBM's terminal emulation. They're simple data entry. Simple reporting. Okay, they're not SEXY like a window's app could be, but when someone is just dumping data into a computer it slows them down to have to deal with a GUI. I think that is something that has been lost on the software developers and marketers and they've been able to ram down our throats. I suppose it's more fun to program all the windows stuff. But is it really beneficial to the app?

Praxis · « **Reply #4 on:** May 25, 2004, 09:13:29 am »

There's no such thing as a cheap Windows.

I remember reading that computer prices have dropped by huge amounts in the last 10 years, and Windows prices have increased by huge amounts in the same time period.

When Win98 came out, it was $100.
Windows XP is $200, WinXP Pro is $300.

WinXP Server is $1000 or more
WinXP Cluster is probably gonna be a lot

BTW, Slashdot quoter!

http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/25/0327244&mode=thread&tid=185&tid=190&tid=201

Personally, I think UNIX will always be best on servers. DOS is simply just too unstable. Even the somewhat better NT kernel used in XP isn't stable enough for professional grade.

The Windows XP system is just really, really bad. Maybe it's okay for a normal user, but not a professional server.

The idea of a registery that takes info of all your programs on your hard drive and smacks it together...ick. When a Windows program is installed, it puts data in the registry, the Windows folder, the system32 folder, the registry, program files, sometimes win.ini, sometimes the control panel, add/remove programs... It's a total MESS. The more stuff you install, the slower your system goes, because each program is connected directly to Windows.

In UNIX based systems like Mac OS X and Linux, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM. A computer with 1,000 programs on it will boot up just as fast as a computer with just the OS (assuming those programs aren't boot hacks).

Not to mention that there are 60,000 viruses for Windows, and 600 for UNIX, most of those coded for the x86 processor. Meaning, they 1) Won't work on Mac OS X, since it uses PPC processors and 2) You have to be stupid enough to run them from the command line in Linux.

And that is why Linux and Mac OS X will always be better server software.

IKV Nemesis D7L · « **Reply #8 on:** May 24, 2004, 11:31:58 pm »

Microsoft on Supercomputers?

Quote:

Microsoft has launched an effort to produce a version of Windows for high-performance computing, a move seen as a direct attack on a Linux stronghold.

High-performance computing once required massive, expensive, exotic machines from companies such as Cray, but the field is being remade by the arrival of clusters of low-end machines. While the trend could be considered an opportunity for Microsoft, which has long been the leading operating-system company, Linux has actually become the favored software used on these clusters.

Now Microsoft has begun its response, forming its High Performance Computing team and planning a new OS version called Windows Server HPC Edition. Kyril Faenov is director of the effort, and Microsoft is hiring new managers, programmers, testers and others.

But can they match the price/performance of Linux which is already a tried and true solution?

Gambler · « **Reply #9 on:** May 25, 2004, 07:22:45 am »

Ah, but you see they can bring something to the high end platforms that has been severely lacking. Crashes, bugs, viruses, worms.

Those poor slobs have been missing the best part of computing.

IKV Nemesis D7L · « **Reply #10 on:** May 25, 2004, 08:20:33 am »

I was thinking more of two things.

1/ Cost / node. How much will it cost to deploy the windows version on a 1000 node system?

2/ The performance cost of every node running a GUI. Why do nodes that are never logged onto locally need that?

If they did produce a cheap Windows CLI that could be administered remotely it could be an important step in the server room. One of the criticisms of windows (in addition to cost) on servers is the mandatory use of the GUI which adds unneeded processing overhead and a very complex level that can cause more crashes.

How about a D2 server on a CLI version of Windows? Would performance and stability be enhanced?

Praxis · « **Reply #12 on:** May 25, 2004, 09:13:29 am »

There's no such thing as a cheap Windows.

I remember reading that computer prices have dropped by huge amounts in the last 10 years, and Windows prices have increased by huge amounts in the same time period.

When Win98 came out, it was $100.
Windows XP is $200, WinXP Pro is $300.

WinXP Server is $1000 or more
WinXP Cluster is probably gonna be a lot

BTW, Slashdot quoter!

http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/25/0327244&mode=thread&tid=185&tid=190&tid=201

Personally, I think UNIX will always be best on servers. DOS is simply just too unstable. Even the somewhat better NT kernel used in XP isn't stable enough for professional grade.

The Windows XP system is just really, really bad. Maybe it's okay for a normal user, but not a professional server.

The idea of a registery that takes info of all your programs on your hard drive and smacks it together...ick. When a Windows program is installed, it puts data in the registry, the Windows folder, the system32 folder, the registry, program files, sometimes win.ini, sometimes the control panel, add/remove programs... It's a total MESS. The more stuff you install, the slower your system goes, because each program is connected directly to Windows.

In UNIX based systems like Mac OS X and Linux, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM. A computer with 1,000 programs on it will boot up just as fast as a computer with just the OS (assuming those programs aren't boot hacks).

Not to mention that there are 60,000 viruses for Windows, and 600 for UNIX, most of those coded for the x86 processor. Meaning, they 1) Won't work on Mac OS X, since it uses PPC processors and 2) You have to be stupid enough to run them from the command line in Linux.

And that is why Linux and Mac OS X will always be better server software.

IKV Nemesis D7L · « **Reply #16 on:** May 24, 2004, 11:31:58 pm »

Microsoft on Supercomputers?

Quote:

Microsoft has launched an effort to produce a version of Windows for high-performance computing, a move seen as a direct attack on a Linux stronghold.

High-performance computing once required massive, expensive, exotic machines from companies such as Cray, but the field is being remade by the arrival of clusters of low-end machines. While the trend could be considered an opportunity for Microsoft, which has long been the leading operating-system company, Linux has actually become the favored software used on these clusters.

Now Microsoft has begun its response, forming its High Performance Computing team and planning a new OS version called Windows Server HPC Edition. Kyril Faenov is director of the effort, and Microsoft is hiring new managers, programmers, testers and others.

But can they match the price/performance of Linux which is already a tried and true solution?

Gambler · « **Reply #17 on:** May 25, 2004, 07:22:45 am »

Ah, but you see they can bring something to the high end platforms that has been severely lacking. Crashes, bugs, viruses, worms.

Those poor slobs have been missing the best part of computing.

IKV Nemesis D7L · « **Reply #18 on:** May 25, 2004, 08:20:33 am »

I was thinking more of two things.

1/ Cost / node. How much will it cost to deploy the windows version on a 1000 node system?

2/ The performance cost of every node running a GUI. Why do nodes that are never logged onto locally need that?

If they did produce a cheap Windows CLI that could be administered remotely it could be an important step in the server room. One of the criticisms of windows (in addition to cost) on servers is the mandatory use of the GUI which adds unneeded processing overhead and a very complex level that can cause more crashes.

How about a D2 server on a CLI version of Windows? Would performance and stability be enhanced?

Praxis · « **Reply #20 on:** May 25, 2004, 09:13:29 am »

There's no such thing as a cheap Windows.

I remember reading that computer prices have dropped by huge amounts in the last 10 years, and Windows prices have increased by huge amounts in the same time period.

When Win98 came out, it was $100.
Windows XP is $200, WinXP Pro is $300.

WinXP Server is $1000 or more
WinXP Cluster is probably gonna be a lot

BTW, Slashdot quoter!

http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/25/0327244&mode=thread&tid=185&tid=190&tid=201

Personally, I think UNIX will always be best on servers. DOS is simply just too unstable. Even the somewhat better NT kernel used in XP isn't stable enough for professional grade.

The Windows XP system is just really, really bad. Maybe it's okay for a normal user, but not a professional server.

The idea of a registery that takes info of all your programs on your hard drive and smacks it together...ick. When a Windows program is installed, it puts data in the registry, the Windows folder, the system32 folder, the registry, program files, sometimes win.ini, sometimes the control panel, add/remove programs... It's a total MESS. The more stuff you install, the slower your system goes, because each program is connected directly to Windows.

In UNIX based systems like Mac OS X and Linux, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM. A computer with 1,000 programs on it will boot up just as fast as a computer with just the OS (assuming those programs aren't boot hacks).

Not to mention that there are 60,000 viruses for Windows, and 600 for UNIX, most of those coded for the x86 processor. Meaning, they 1) Won't work on Mac OS X, since it uses PPC processors and 2) You have to be stupid enough to run them from the command line in Linux.

And that is why Linux and Mac OS X will always be better server software.

News:

Topic: Microsoft on Supercomputers? (Read 2943 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

IKV Nemesis D7L

Gambler

IKV Nemesis D7L

Gambler

Praxis

IKV Nemesis D7L

IKV Nemesis D7L

Praxis

IKV Nemesis D7L

Gambler

IKV Nemesis D7L

Gambler

Praxis

IKV Nemesis D7L

IKV Nemesis D7L

Praxis

IKV Nemesis D7L

Gambler

IKV Nemesis D7L

Gambler

Praxis

IKV Nemesis D7L

IKV Nemesis D7L

Praxis

Topic: Microsoft on Supercomputers? (Read 2943 times)