PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft Creating Supercomputer Software


RobertoOrtiz
11-15-2005, 02:48 PM
Quote:
"Microsoft Corp. is developing software for high-performance computers often used in engineering and science research, in a move that puts the company in another head-to-head battle with open-source developers. "
>>Link<< (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051115/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_supercomputing;_ylt=AgNBe.l9ycB80zHDQwTeQH.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3cjE0b2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg-)
-R

Dennik
11-15-2005, 03:27 PM
Heh, i can't help myself smiling at the thought "hey! thats a good way to make a supercomputer run slower"

enygma
11-15-2005, 04:50 PM
I think this is fairly old news. I ended up catching wind of this on Slashdot a while back when I was putting together a small OpenMOSIX cluster in my office. While I believe this is a way for Microsoft to try and get a grapple on the HPC market, I don't think they will get much further than getting a foot in the door.

TetraLynx
11-15-2005, 05:32 PM
"hey! thats a good way to make a supercomputer run slower"

They are engineering a better bluescreen for the future.

toonpang
11-15-2005, 08:16 PM
Is it going to be free, or built into longhorn?

Our Mac network already has clustering capabilities because Xgrid is built into OSX Tiger.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/xgrid/

Once again MS is a year late and a buck short... :rolleyes:

-Kevin

enygma
11-15-2005, 08:25 PM
From TFA
The Microsoft product, called Windows Compute Cluster Server 2003, is due out in the first few months of 2006. The company has not yet set pricing.
Yes... too little, too late and probably a buck too much. OS X and Linux clusters can be set up for relatively cheap, considering an Unlimited site license of OS X Tiger Server is cheaper than most enterprise operating systems (like Windows Server 2003 and Redhat Enterprise Linux AS) for a single license. I cringe to see what they are going to charge for something that can be done for free with Linux and relatively cheap with OS X Server.

JeroenDStout
11-15-2005, 08:26 PM
They are engineering a better bluescreen for the future.
At least it'll appear faster.

ivanisavich
11-15-2005, 08:38 PM
At least it'll appear faster.


Maybe the new ones will come in different colors! What could be cooler than the Fuschia Screen of Death?

JeroenDStout
11-15-2005, 08:43 PM
Actually there used to be this application with which you can change it. I had it black with red letters once. Always wished I could've added "DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!" at the top.

gavin_hughes
11-15-2005, 10:22 PM
wow,
we all love to hate MS so much and so fast to make negative comments no matter what direction MS takes. ...
could it be because we can do much better jobs and design and create and engineer much better apps..

hmm, if we can then, why not do so instead of trolling along the "MS is crap" pile.


"stick that in ur pipe and smoke it."

JeroenDStout
11-15-2005, 11:13 PM
I never understood where the misconception of 'if you can comment you can do better' came from, really. If I make a joke about Microsoft it doesn't mean I can do better, perhaps think of better things but I don't have the finance for making an OS. Nevertheless, it does mean Microsoft is usually messing about making windows XP which takes 8 seconds just to display my start menu's program tap.

:p here, take a smoke from my pipe

enygma
11-15-2005, 11:28 PM
wow,
we all love to hate MS so much and so fast to make negative comments no matter what direction MS takes. ...
could it be because we can do much better jobs and design and create and engineer much better apps..
No, but we can do better jobs at choosing better apps. MS may be going towards the HPC market, but the problem here is that it is already a market that is already developed around already tested and true operating systems.

In other words, other people can and have done a better job, and all Microsoft can realy do is try and reinvent the wheel and rebrand it.

AmbiDextrose
11-15-2005, 11:50 PM
MS may be going towards the HPC market, but the problem here is that it is already a market that is already developed around already tested and true operating systems. In other words, other people can and have done a better job, and all Microsoft can realy do is try and reinvent the wheel and rebrand it.

So, if the current platforms for HPC are all you say they are, why do you care? Let the product speak for itself.

Seriously, two-node clustering has been part of Windows Server since version 4.0. Datacenter was a separate OS tier that supports nodes with 32 processors, 64GB of memory, and more than 4 (up to 16?) cluster nodes. And these are tightly-coupled clusters that share the same back-end storage, usually over a SAN.

Grid computing for the Windows platform has been around since late 2000. Grids can be loosely-coupled (i.e. farms such as render farms) or tightly-coupled (as in shared-everything clusters). They have been in the HPC market, especially in the financial sector, far longer than you give them credit for. What MS is doing is just building in the functionality that has been available via third-party products.

gavin_hughes
11-15-2005, 11:53 PM
In other words, other people can and have done a better job, and all Microsoft can realy do is try and reinvent the wheel and rebrand it.

and ur going to sue them for that?

yea we can do better jobs at choosing better apps, just not better OS to run those apps apparently.

maybe thats why the majority of us here is on linux/unix machines at this very moment....:wise:

enygma
11-16-2005, 01:26 AM
and ur going to sue them for that?

yea we can do better jobs at choosing better apps, just not better OS to run those apps apparently.

maybe thats why the majority of us here is on linux/unix machines at this very moment....:wise:
Who am I going to sue for what? Not my job to do if there is a case to be held for it.

BTW, by apps, I meant operating systems. Hard to proof read your post when you are in a hurry to run out the door... ;)

Personally though, I don't hate MS. I'll give them credit where credit is due. I am just looking at it from a perspective of need. Although they haven't introduced their cluster edition yet, I look at the current arena of high performance computing (mainly in terms of scientific and research) and don't see where Windows cluster edition is going to fit in. Like I mentioned in my original post, "I don't think they will get much further than getting a foot in the door."

Since they have HPC in the financial area via third party applications, they already have their foot in the door, and I just see this move lowering their TCO. But I'm more basing my statements more from a scientific computing perspective since that is where my main area of focus is with work, so I can only really comment in terms of that.

Hazdaz
11-16-2005, 01:32 AM
wow,
we all love to hate MS so much and so fast to make negative comments no matter what direction MS takes. ...
could it be because we can do much better jobs and design and create and engineer much better apps..

hmm, if we can then, why not do so instead of trolling along the "MS is crap" pile.


"stick that in ur pipe and smoke it."

What the hell are you smoking?

MS has a reputation for producing not-so-stable and resource-hogging software. WE didn't create that reputation - MS did.

Sure XP is 10000 times better than any pervious version of Windows, but reputations die hard - and many times are well deserved. Get back to us in a few decades when MS has released a string of good, fast, efficient and stable code... but one good OS release is not going to erase people's memories of crashes, lock-ups and running out of memory.

And this is all even more important in the super-computer realm that MS seems to be going into with this announcement. You can't jsut ctrl-alt-del your way out of a super-computer problem if you have been running a complex simulation for the last month. This is all super-serious stuff, and from what we have seen of MS's OS pre-XP, people have more than a little reason to be concerned.

AmbiDextrose
11-16-2005, 02:26 AM
What the hell are you smoking?

MS has a reputation for producing not-so-stable and resource-hogging software. WE didn't create that reputation - MS did.

Sure XP is 10000 times better than any pervious version of Windows, but reputations die hard - and many times are well deserved. Get back to us in a few decades when MS has released a string of good, fast, efficient and stable code... but one good OS release is not going to erase people's memories of crashes, lock-ups and running out of memory.

And this is all even more important in the super-computer realm that MS seems to be going into with this announcement. You can't jsut ctrl-alt-del your way out of a super-computer problem if you have been running a complex simulation for the last month. This is all super-serious stuff, and from what we have seen of MS's OS pre-XP, people have more than a little reason to be concerned.


You're very welcome to come to New York and look at five racks of Compaq ProLiant Servers running proprietary software on Windows 2000 Server participating in a loosely-coupled grid performing market trend analysis for one of the biggest financial firms in the world. They haven't been shutdown since the NY blackout of 2003.


Now, I'm a storage engineer so I'm platform neutral BUT I wish people whose sole experience with Windows spans a few workstations and a couple of servers just stop before they embarrass themselves. If you want to talk number-crunching, financial systems crunch more numbers in a week than all of Pixars films put together. Seriously, if you really want to talk about numbers, talk to an actuary.

Hazdaz
11-16-2005, 03:14 AM
You're very welcome to come to New York and look at five racks of Compaq ProLiant Servers running proprietary software on Windows 2000 Server participating in a loosely-coupled grid performing market trend analysis for one of the biggest financial firms in the world. They haven't been shutdown since the NY blackout of 2003.


Now, I'm a storage engineer so I'm platform neutral BUT I wish people whose sole experience with Windows spans a few workstations and a couple of servers just stop before they embarrass themselves. If you want to talk number-crunching, financial systems crunch more numbers in a week than all of Pixars films put together. Seriously, if you really want to talk about numbers, talk to an actuary.

Don't make me laugh - Windows 2000 (while being a good OS, and the basis for the much better XP) was never meant to be a 'mass market' OS, which is where most of MS's negative reputation has come from. Or do you not think that MS has a negative reputation? Having a rack of 2000 stations that run a limited number of applications is no different than running a lab experiement and wondering why your results vary from someone that actually uses a computer, for what a computer was made for... you know, like install new software, uninstall old software (or atleast try to, since there are always remnants left in teh registry), and I am not even going to mention dealing with the trials and tribulations of having yoru system open to the internet's perils. How does running proprietary software even come close to a "realworld" environment that 99.999999% of PC users face?

Hell, if you really wanna talk closed proprietary system - most CNC machining now a days is done with PCs running Windows 2000. We are talking about 'cheap' $100k systems, up to multi million dollar systems for the biggest manufacturers in the world. The machines can not crash - if they do, entire production lines can be held up and thousands and thousands of dollars can be lost in damages parts, let alone lost productivitity.... BUT there is a caveat to all this. While most/many of these systems run Windows 2000, ALL they do is run one or two applications. All the software is usually preinstalled in very, very specific locations, no new software is ever installed on these systems and really they are much less PCs, than they are 'appliances'.

It is done this way, because Windows (even 2000) is not good when it comes to uninstalling and reinstalling and managing updates and patches and all that crap taht Windows is known for. It is all that other stuff - the stuff that typical PC users ahve to face - that crashes Windows. And that, my friend, is where MS has 'earned' it's negative reputation. XP (which is a 'mass market' OS) is SOOO much better, but people's misstrust of MS OSs isn't going to go away quite that quickly.

AmbiDextrose
11-16-2005, 03:33 AM
Don't make me laugh - Windows 2000 (while being a good OS, and the basis for the much better XP) was never meant to be a 'mass market' OS, which is where most of MS's negative reputation has come from. Or do you not think that MS has a negative reputation? Having a rack of 2000 stations that run a limited number of applications is no different than running a lab experiement and wondering why your results vary from someone that actually uses a computer, for what a computer was made for... you know, like install new software, uninstall old software (or atleast try to, since there are always remnants left in teh registry), and I am not even going to mention dealing with the trials and tribulations of having yoru system open to the internet's perils. How does running proprietary software even come close to a "realworld" environment that 99.999999% of PC users face?

Hell, if you really wanna talk closed proprietary system - most CNC machining now a days is done with PCs running Windows 2000. We are talking about 'cheap' $100k systems, up to multi million dollar systems for the biggest manufacturers in the world. The machines can not crash - if they do, entire production lines can be held up and thousands and thousands of dollars can be lost in damages parts, let alone lost productivitity.... BUT there is a caveat to all this. While most/many of these systems run Windows 2000, ALL they do is run one or two applications. All the software is usually preinstalled in very, very specific locations, no new software is ever installed on these systems and really they are much less PCs, than they are 'appliances'.

It is done this way, because Windows (even 2000) is not good when it comes to uninstalling and reinstalling and managing updates and patches and all that crap taht Windows is known for. It is all that other stuff - the stuff that typical PC users ahve to face - that crashes Windows. And that, my friend, is where MS has 'earned' it's negative reputation. XP (which is a 'mass market' OS) is SOOO much better, but people's misstrust of MS OSs isn't going to go away quite that quickly.

You're a funny guy. How do you expect me to take you seriously when THIS is your reasoning? Look at the thread: HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING. Do you really expect the usage patterns for these systems will even come close to "mass market OS"? Since when do you install productivity applications on a machine that does genome mapping? Or how often does a new version of a software used to monitor tectonic plate activity come out? Do you know how utterly idiotic that sounds?

The fact is, even if these systems are running proprietary software (unless you can buy huricane simulation software at your local office supply store), they are performing in the real world. They have real world requirements (power, temperature, etc.) and they perform services real people are dependent on.

I've given proof that pre-WinXP/2K3 Windows OS can be very stable in an HPC setting. You actually corroborated that point when you stated that these machines only run one or two software packages (basically, do one or two jobs) and are stable if they do so. Well, guess what- that how HPC clusters and grids are configured.

Geez, you're just reasoning for the sake of arguing.

Hazdaz
11-16-2005, 04:25 AM
You're a funny guy. How do you expect me to take you seriously when THIS is your reasoning? Look at the thread: HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING. Do you really expect the usage patterns for these systems will even come close to "mass market OS"? Since when do you install productivity applications on a machine that does genome mapping? Or how often does a new version of a software used to monitor tectonic plate activity come out? Do you know how utterly idiotic that sounds?

The fact is, even if these systems are running proprietary software (unless you can buy huricane simulation software at your local office supply store), they are performing in the real world. They have real world requirements (power, temperature, etc.) and they perform services real people are dependent on.

I've given proof that pre-WinXP/2K3 Windows OS can be very stable in an HPC setting. You actually corroborated that point when you stated that these machines only run one or two software packages (basically, do one or two jobs) and are stable if they do so. Well, guess what- that how HPC clusters and grids are configured.

Geez, you're just reasoning for the sake of arguing.

You TOTALY and completely miss the point - holy crap. The systems you mentioned (and the ones that I mentioned) have next to NOTHING to do with 99.9999% of what the 'average' person sees in terms of MS's quality. If you actually read my first post and saw who I was replying to, you would see that they were complaining as to why people are making fun of MS's OS. You better believe that after the crap that MS has shovelled through the door people are going to throw a few one-liners at them after an announcement like this one. They - and only they - created their reputation for piss poor software.

To then take it one step farther and go into the much more precise and more critical world of super-computing, that definitly should throw up a few red-flags (warranted or not)... after all, if they can't make a reliable and efficient consumer OS (XP might be reliable now, but it sure as hell isn't efficient) how do people expect them to make a reliable and efficient super-computer software? I realize that (duh!) super-computer software is not anythign like comsumer software, but a reputation is a reputation.

You can't be building Yugos a few years ago, and now try to come out with Maybachs (Mercedes ultra high-end car line). Even if the 2 products have NOTHING to do with each other, reputations exist and you better be prepared for many jokes at your expense.

maX_Andrews
11-16-2005, 04:36 AM
"The Microsoft product, called Windows Compute Cluster Server 2003, is due out in the first few months of 2006"
hahahaha...2003.....2006.....nice naming sceme MS. I'd love to buy something that's three years old.

AmbiDextrose
11-16-2005, 04:50 AM
To then take it one step farther and go into the much more precise and more critical world of super-computing, that definitly should throw up a few red-flags (warranted or not)... after all, if they can't make a reliable and efficient consumer OS (XP might be reliable now, but it sure as hell isn't efficient) how do people expect them to make a reliable and efficient super-computer software? I realize that (duh!) super-computer software is not anythign like comsumer software, but a reputation is a reputation.

You can't be building Yugos a few years ago, and now try to come out with Maybachs (Mercedes ultra high-end car line). Even if the 2 products have NOTHING to do with each other, reputations exist and you better be prepared for many jokes at your expense.

Your point is mute because it's been proven that their OS can indeed be stable and used in clustred and grid HPC environment which was the point of this thread. Besides, a reputation in the "mass market" sector does not directly translate into other market segments. If you were really "in the know", you would understand this and not form any sort of judgement based on the performance of one product line.

It's like saying that a farmer will never grow good oranges because you had a bad experience with the apples he sold you. Or just because Honda makes good cars doesn't mean thay can make great pick-ups (my opinion, of course).

toonpang
11-16-2005, 05:29 AM
How do you expect me to take you seriously when THIS is your reasoning?

Well, If Microsoft wasn't such a doo-doo poopie head maybe I'd care. :wise:

They can suck my fedora core'd anus.

-Kevin

PS - Just trying to lighten the mood here guys.. if they make a good product fine, but I'm not holding my breath (cuz its out now for free for linux and OSX). Just remember "pie in the face" and MS will always be funny.. :D

Apoclypse
11-16-2005, 12:27 PM
Why buy something that will probably be far more expensive, that you could get cheaper (or free). From a proven OS base (*nix).

opus13
11-16-2005, 05:28 PM
how do people expect them to make a reliable and efficient super-computer software? .

they already do. its called.... windows server 2003. clustering has long been integrated into the windows server family, and the grid aspect is finally being pushed into the limelight

many financial institutions (brokerages, banks, credit institutions) run windows server as their backbone, with either a custom solution or prefab packages like MS-SQL on top. they go for MS solutions because it offers them several things:

1. no highpriced specialists. hardware is all commodity based, and you shouldnt have to hire a specialist just to run the software (linux, et al). specialists cost too much to keep on full time. why pay a linux admin 120k when you can easily get a 4th year MSD admin for 85k?

2. greater IT hiring pool. directly related to the above, there are simply more competent people available for basic troubleshooting and management.

3. obvious support. there are only so many turbo-nerds available for on-call support. if you have a problem, you cant wait for someone to get to you.

4. MS backs their rep'd installations (done through their large scale servicing department) with the exact same uptime gaurantees as Sun, HP and Fujitsu --99.99% (the famous four nines)

5. if you are purchasing an installation license, MS is on call for their service period with insanely well educated engineers... again, when you need them. even their second tier guys can impress you, never mind the third.

one thing to consider is that windows 'super computer edition' isnt all that new. its mostly just a re-targetting of marketing effort, much the same way that server 2003 web edition is. there is nothing new in the web edition over the 2003 standard, just repurposed for the target purchasing market.

my 2 cents.


EDIT: i just realized that i mostly restated what was already stated by ambidextrose. go me... way to read the thread thoroughly. :rolleyes:


i did just want to add:


Since they have HPC in the financial area via third party applications, they already have their foot in the door, and I just see this move lowering their TCO.
...what the hell does that mean?

why would MS have to lower their TCO? it's up to a client to lower the TCO, and MS could only facilitate that by offering a product that is servicable as a natural extension by the clients IT staff.

enygma
11-16-2005, 05:36 PM
3. obvious support. there are only so many turbo-nerds available for on-call support. if you have a problem, you cant wait for someone to get to you.
I guess that explains *nix dominance in the scientific computing area... we're all turbo nerds... :bounce::buttrock:

AmbiDextrose
11-16-2005, 05:38 PM
I guess that explains *nix dominance in the scientific computing area... we're all turbo nerds... :bounce::buttrock:

Which translates to "not having a life outside of work" :D.

enygma
11-16-2005, 05:41 PM
Which translates to "not having a life outside of work" :D.Damn... I want to go slam you for that comment, but I'm having troubles getting away from work stuff!! :D

AmbiDextrose
11-16-2005, 05:45 PM
Damn... I want to go slam you for that comment, but I'm having troubles getting away from work stuff!! :D

It's all good. I've worked on both sides of the fence so I can dish either way. Hence my nickname :D. If I see an over-zealous WinFreak, I have no problem torching him as well.

opus13
11-16-2005, 05:57 PM
Why buy something that will probably be far more expensive, that you could get cheaper (or free). From a proven OS base (*nix).

thats kind of hte point of all this... if you purchase a sever with linux installed, and then need an industrial strength application on top... the savings goes right out the window.

when you look at a hardware base that goes from 50k to 600k (with ease), and you want to install SQL Oracle on top, who really cares about the OS cost? it's egligible in the long run. when you are licensing your application by the processor, on the order of 1k to 20k EACH, then a coupel hundres dollars per box in your installation means nothing.

although those prices may seem high for a software solution, it can easily get worse when you intend to roll-your-own solution. coding for a multithreaded (SMP, etc) platform efficiently is a nightmare... doing it for multithreaded, grid/clustered installations is ridiculous. its a several hundred thousand dollar project to start. well, unless you have postgrad students working for you.. then you dont have exploitation concerns. ;)

so that belabors the point even more... who cares if the OS is free?

enygma
11-16-2005, 07:27 PM
...what the hell does that mean?

why would MS have to lower their TCO? it's up to a client to lower the TCO, and MS could only facilitate that by offering a product that is servicable as a natural extension by the clients IT staff.Their = Financial sector companies using Microsoft software, as in Microsoft wants to help lower their (Financial companies) total cost of ownership.

Why would I mean Microsoft wanting to lower their own TCO?

MattClary
11-17-2005, 02:10 PM
Say what you want about MS, but they make very user friendly products. They took Sybase's unwieldly product and made it so simple a monkey can use it. Currently I am trying to get the Lotus Notes client to run on Citrix Metaframe. Talk about a MAJOR f*cking ordeal!!! Funny how Outlook just freaking WORKS! I'm no MS fanboy, they piss me off in a lot of ways, but their software is easy to use.

CGTalk Moderation
11-17-2005, 02:10 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.