eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) (05/13/91)
In article <1991May12.160205.9784@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> ury@mossad.huji.ac.il (ury segal) writes: >How you define a supercomputer ? ( >100 MIPS ???) You have to ask the United States Department of Commerce. --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers 8^) {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
andy@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Andy Pippin <The Elf>) (05/14/91)
~In article <1991May12.160205.9784@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
~ury@mossad.huji.ac.il (ury segal) writes:
~>How you define a supercomputer ? ( >100 MIPS ???)
Like, ya' know, then eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) says...
~
~You have to ask the United States Department of Commerce.
Heh. The division line for "Super" and "Not-so-super" has
ceased to be a matter of instruction speed. Last I heard,
the dividing lines were:
$1,000,000 < Supers <= Sanity?
$ 100,000 < Mainframes <= $1,000,000
$ 10,000 < Mini's <= $ 100,000
$ 300 < Personal <= $ 10,000
$ 20 < Video Games<= $ 300
$ 0 < Doorstops <= $ 20
"Mainframes" is a very generic description. That can, and usually
does include "Super-mini's" as well.
aBp.
(I'm not so positive about the last two ratings, but I the first
four are correct according to the gossip that I've heard.)
--
Andy Pippin \ Please don't tell my folks I'm in school. They
andy@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU \ still think I'm a poker dealer in a whorehouse!
1011 1011 110 1011 1011 110 1011 1011 110 1011 1011 110 1011 1011 110
33 more days!!! benseb@grumpy.sdsc.edu (Booker Bense) (05/15/91)
In article <1991May13.051215.8101@nas.nasa.gov> eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes: >In article <1991May12.160205.9784@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> >ury@mossad.huji.ac.il (ury segal) writes: >>How you define a supercomputer ? ( >100 MIPS ???) > >You have to ask the United States Department of Commerce. > - I think this list should just about cover it %-)! A supercomputer has the following characteristics: - Lots of memory, but not quite enough to run your problem. - It should be difficult to program. Assembly is the prefered language of supercomputers. Fortran or C compilers are acceptable, any machine with a lisp compiler can not be a supercomputer. - The ablity to run the LINPACK benchmark at near the maximum speed after months of massaging assembly routines. The inablity to run portable code at greater than 1/10th the machine speed. - Non portable language extensions are a must.!!! Any code that is optimized for one machine should require several months to get running on any other supercomputer. - Frequent crashes just as your job is finishing up it's output. - Of course , we can't forget I/O bottlenecks. - Hundreds / thousands of users competing for cpu time. - Cryptic operating systems. Or if they use a commonly available one it should be at least 2-3 revisions behind what you are used to. REMEMBER, this is a joke !!!! - Booker C. Bense prefered: benseb@grumpy.sdsc.edu "I think it's GOOD that everyone NeXT Mail: benseb@next.sdsc.edu becomes food " - Hobbes
eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) (05/15/91)
In article <377@nic.cerf.net> benseb@grumpy.sdsc.edu (Booker Bense) writes a very funny article: >>In article <1991May12.160205.9784@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> >>ury@mossad.huji.ac.il (ury segal) writes: >>>How you define a supercomputer ? ( >100 MIPS ???) He probably asked this in all seriousness. "The fastest machine(s) at any given point in time." --S.F. There is also the paper "'Supercomputer' is just a marketing term." %A Sidney Fernbach, ed. %T Supercomputers, Class VI Systems, Hardware and Software %I North-Holland %D 1986 %K book, text, cray, cdc cyber, data flow, NEC SX-2, Fujitsu VP-200, Hitachi 810/20, vector processing, %X A collection of papers surveying existing computer architectures rather than newer proposed supercomputer architectures. %X A book from one of the men who set up the "Class system" of the DOE. I answered (only half serious): >>You have to ask the United States Department of Commerce. I posted this because of the author's "il" address. It harkens back to a chance meeting in which I gave DEC's Washington DC lawyer a ride in Yosemite. Seems she wanted to sell a VAX 9000 to IL. DOC said the 9000 was a supercomputer. DOD apparently didn't think it was. "Was I willing to say the VAX 9000 was not a super computer?" "So it (the 9000) the fastest machine around?" DOC won. So I guess IL is getting a SUPRENUM. And this story is what I get for giving two hitchhikers a ride. So I guess the 9000 is a supercomputer in the eyes of the DOC, and Sid Fernbach's definition was wrong. So the answer still stands: that you have to ask the US DOC. Added featuritis: >- I think this list should just about cover it %-)! > >A supercomputer has the following characteristics: > >- Lots of memory, but not quite enough to run your problem. - Virtual memory? What's that? [One could make jokes about parity....] >- It should be difficult to program. Assembly is the prefered >language of supercomputers. Fortran or C compilers are acceptable, >any machine with a lisp compiler can not be a supercomputer. This gets rid of Wayne Anderson's Portable Standard Lisp efforts. Does this disqualify the TMC CM line? >- The ablity to run the LINPACK benchmark at near the maximum speed >after months of massaging assembly routines. The inablity to run >portable code at greater than 1/10th the machine speed. > >- Non portable language extensions are a must.!!! Any code that is >optimized for one machine should require several months to get running >on any other supercomputer. Exotic new languages are acceptable. (excepting LISP) >- Frequent crashes just as your job is finishing up it's output. Exotic new hardware technology: cooling, packaging, etc. >- Of course , we can't forget I/O bottlenecks. The Batcher definition. ("A Supercomputer is any machine which turns a CPU bound job into an I/O bound job.") >- Hundreds / thousands of users competing for cpu time. >- Cryptic operating systems. Or if they use a commonly available one >it should be at least 2-3 revisions behind what you are used to. >REMEMBER, this is a joke !!!! It was funny! I hope you keep the amended list and post it regularly. --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
ari@Mordor.Stanford.EDU (Ari Ollikainen) (05/15/91)
Actually, a REAL supercomputer has to cost about 20megaBuck$ to be State-of-the-Art.
sgombosi@isis.cs.du.edu (Stephen O. Gombosi) (05/15/91)
In article <377@nic.cerf.net> benseb@grumpy.sdsc.edu (Booker Bense) writes: In article <1991May13.051215.8101@nas.nasa.gov> eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes: >In article <1991May12.160205.9784@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> >ury@mossad.huji.ac.il (ury segal) writes: >>How you define a supercomputer ? ( >100 MIPS ???) > >You have to ask the United States Department of Commerce. > My favorite definition (courtesy of John Levesque, Pacific-Sierra (I think)): supercomputer: a device for converting a cpu-bound problem into an I/O-bound problem. -Steve
armstron@cs.arizona.edu (Jim Armstrong) (05/15/91)
In article <377@nic.cerf.net> benseb@grumpy.sdsc.edu (Booker Bense) writes: >>>How you define a supercomputer ? ( >100 MIPS ???) >>You have to ask the United States Department of Commerce. > >- I think this list should just about cover it %-)! My favorite two definitions: The fastest machine $5 million can buy. Any machine faster than IBM's top mainframe. Or how about: A machine that can complete an infinite loop in < 10 seconds. :^) :^) :^) :^) -- Jim Armstrong "The nonpayment and subsequent abuse of armstron@cs.arizona.edu socially powerless athletes is simply a uunet!arizona!armstron form of modern-day slavery" --Rick Telander
dwells@fits.cx.nrao.edu (Don Wells) (05/15/91)
A supercomputer is a machine for which the decision to buy is made for political reasons, not technical. -- Donald C. Wells Associate Scientist dwells@nrao.edu National Radio Astronomy Observatory +1-804-296-0277 Edgemont Road Fax= +1-804-296-0278 Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-2475 USA 78:31.1W, 38:02.2N
jack@chopin.udel.edu (Jack Seltzer) (05/15/91)
What do you mean "This is a joke" !!????....looks fairly accurate to me!
sgombosi@isis.cs.du.edu (Stephen O. Gombosi) (05/15/91)
In article <DWELLS.91May14220342@fits.cx.nrao.edu> dwells@fits.cx.nrao.edu (Don Wells) writes: >A supercomputer is a machine for which the decision to buy is made for >political reasons, not technical. If that's true, then most of the IBM mainframes out there are "supercomputers". To quote the industry cliche: "Nobody ever got fired for buying from IBM...". - Steve (just another ex-Crayon...)
alan@uh.msc.umn.edu (Alan Klietz) (05/16/91)
A supercomputer is any machine which is faster than IBM's current top-of-line mainframe. So by definition, a 3090 is not a supercomputer. :-)
eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) (05/16/91)
In article <4098@uc.msc.umn.edu> alan@msc.edu (Alan Klietz) writes: >A supercomputer is any machine which is faster than IBM's current >top-of-line mainframe. > >So by definition, a 3090 is not a supercomputer. :-) So Alan, the MSC document I just got which mentioned the 3090-600, this latter machine isn't a supercomputer? Okay. ;^) This reminds me when when we were cross-posting the Kahaner reports in this news group. First David had me post the list of Japanese Crays and ETAs, then Patrick asked whether or not Convex-en were supers (David said no). Then I remembered a Connection Machine was delivered (Yes). Then came hypercubes (No) and 3090s. "Well, IBM didn't provide him with a list of 3090 centers in Japan, so No." P.S. David enjoyed giving his presentations last month in Oregon (Salishan and DMCC6), and he enjoyed meeting a host of readers. --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
ds@juniper09.cray.com (David Sielaff) (05/16/91)
In article <1991May14.230507.8959@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> sgombosi@isis.UUCP (Stephen O. Gombosi) writes: >In article <377@nic.cerf.net> benseb@grumpy.sdsc.edu (Booker Bense) writes: >In article <1991May13.051215.8101@nas.nasa.gov> eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes: >>In article <1991May12.160205.9784@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> >>ury@mossad.huji.ac.il (ury segal) writes: >>>How you define a supercomputer ? ( >100 MIPS ???) >> >>You have to ask the United States Department of Commerce. >> >My favorite definition (courtesy of John Levesque, Pacific-Sierra (I think)): > >supercomputer: a device for converting a cpu-bound problem into an I/O-bound > problem. > >-Steve I forgot where I got this definition (possibly from Neil Lincoln, ex-ETA, now at SSESCO): Supercomputer: Any computer which is just two orders of magnitude less powerful than what users really want. ;-) Dave
martelli@cadlab.sublink.ORG (Alex Martelli) (05/17/91)
A definition I remember, and which seems to me to make sense: a supercomputer
is a system architected and designed for PERFORMANCE, to the *detriment* of
PRICE/performance. The curve you can draw with price on X axis and
performance on y axis will generally have an inflection point: below that,
you are below optimal price/performance because you are not exploiting
economies of scale, and above that, you are below optimal price/performance
because of diminishing-returns effects.
I always like this idea, incomplete as it is, because to me it says something
about the ('politically' motivated) "wisdom" of buying a supercomputer, and
then overloading it with timesharing jobs...
--
Alex Martelli - CAD.LAB s.p.a., v. Stalingrado 53, Bologna, Italia
Email: (work:) martelli@cadlab.sublink.org, (home:) alex@am.sublink.org
Phone: (work:) ++39 (51) 371099, (home:) ++39 (51) 250434;
Fax: ++39 (51) 366964 (work only), Fidonet: 332/407.314 (home only).robp@gumby.network.com (Rob Peglar) (05/21/91)
In article <856@cadlab.sublink.ORG> martelli@cadlab.sublink.ORG (Alex Martelli) writes: >A definition I remember, and which seems to me to make sense: a supercomputer >is a system architected and designed for PERFORMANCE, to the *detriment* of >PRICE/performance. The curve you can draw with price on X axis and >performance on y axis will generally have an inflection point: below that, >you are below optimal price/performance because you are not exploiting >economies of scale, and above that, you are below optimal price/performance >because of diminishing-returns effects. >I always like this idea, incomplete as it is, because to me it says something >about the ('politically' motivated) "wisdom" of buying a supercomputer, and >then overloading it with timesharing jobs... Not bad, Alex. I recall sending Eugene a blurb on the subject more than a few months ago - still got it, Eugene? I don't... Anyway, a supercomputer... ...should cost more than a million dollars (covers lots of mktg overhead) ...should come with a small armada of analysts/CEs/salestypes (kinda like a Naval carrier group) ...should go on PM at least once a week (aka CE job security:-)) ...should always be overloaded ...should always have at least one session running "vi" on it ...almost always makes for great plumbing/air handling architectures ...and most of all, is always but always surrounded by politics, money machinations, multi-level RFQ/RFP/RFI/RFwhatevers, assorted sales/marketing bonanzas, and other generally fun and unique intrigue and/or occasional international espionage/scandal. You say you want a technical definition? -- Rob Peglar Network Systems Corporation Internetwork Group 7600 Boone Avenue North robp@anubis.network.com Minneapolis MN 55428 (612)424-4888 x1028
eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May20.194335.15560@ns.network.com> robp@gumby.network.com (Rob Peglar) writes: >I recall sending Eugene a blurb on the subject more than a few months >ago - still got it, Eugene? I don't... Nope, sorry, Rob. > intrigue and/or occasional international espionage/scandal. I recall Creon coming back from Chippewa Falls in 1984 saying how beautiful a Cray-2 looked. Then Clancy came out with The Hunt for Red October with a Cray-2 looking nothing like a real one (since he didn't know). So after the announcement, George Michael (officemate) who had a daughter at Annapolis and whom saw Clancy every now and again in the Academy bookstore. So he gave to her a picture of a real Cray-2 to give to Clancy. Intrigue is just silly. Bring on the killer micros. --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) (05/22/91)
An interesting thought along the lines of this discussion
occured to me. I have some manuals, vendor will remain nameless
but they will know who they are. Some of these manuals have red
covers, and a few have day-glo stickers which read something to the effect:
Paraphased: "The document is not to leave the country of origin or the
sales region where it was distributed." And I think they cite some
Dept. of Commerce regulation.
I wonder how many people have had run-ins when traveling with manuals
(to study). My only encounter with the DOC took place in late 1984 when I
wanted to take a Mac and a GRiD Compass to China (State Dept. Tech. exchange).
Separate post:
>Where are they now?
If you have to ask, maybe some one doesn't want you to know.
Patience with unreleased products.
Comp.sys.super: where everybody listens, but nobody talks. ;^)
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
{uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugenesvec5@menudo.uh.edu (T.C. Zhao) (05/24/91)
Any computers the sysadm forces you to run COS (like PSC) or CTSS on it. Seriously, I never understood why the guys at PSC were so fond of COS ? Couple of years ago, despite that fact that CRI changed OS to UNIX, the PSC guys were working their heads off to make UNIX behave like COS. It is unbelievable that they charge 50% of connection time as CPU time! I hope PSC is not runing COS now. When I skim the buffer magzine the energy reseach publishes, about 60% is talking about CTSS.