Cluster Computing

[tito]

You probably won't even notice the extra computers unless you're running batch jobs. For everyday tasks I doubt you'll notice a speedup.

 

Maybe good for folding

 

A cluster within a supercluster.

[duanester]

looks pretty cool, though i know nothing about this, would this be like folding as an example when you say batch jobs, setti and folding would use this technoligy correct?

[tito]

Yes, same principle as folding.

 

A packet of unprocessed data is sent over a LAN to any one of a number of computers which then processes the data and sends it back.

 

The point being made is that if it is a small task it will be just as quick for one CPU to do it as it will take longer for it to be sent over the lan.

 

SO basically, very large tasks would be the only beneficiaries (Eg: a [email protected]/[email protected] work unit)

BTW: Nice avatar, I didn't recognise you!

[xXenXx]

If you were going to fold, it would be more efficient to run a seperate client on each computer.

[tito]

If you were going to fold, it would be more efficient to run a seperate client on each computer.

 

True, but on p3 isn't going to get a WU done any time soon.

[John 44]

I read a paper last year about a very efficient small compute cluster on entirely ordinary hardware that came close to 100% performance on even relatively short computations. If I can find it, I'll post a link.

 

By 100% performance, I mean that 2 nodes do the just in 1/2 the time that 1 node does; 3 nodes 1/3, etc.

 

But in that particular case, the hardware setup, the cluster software, and the compute software were specifically for the task at hand in a coordinated effort of software and hardware engineers.

[tito]

I suppose it could be efficient with very responsive machines, a fibre optic network and some snazzy NICs.

[duanester]

so it can be 2000 machines working for one single machine, like some sort of network server

[John 44]

Well, I'm still looking. It might make a liar out me if I find it, but no, just plain old 10/100 NICs. However, I'll say again. Both the cluster and compute software were written for the exact task at hand. And, although the hardware itself was ordinary, its specific configuration was also designed precisely for the software it would be running.

 

I seriously doubt that one can find general cluster software that could match that kind of performance in small tasks. One would probably need to hire someone to write it.

[John 44]

so it can be 2000 machines working for one single machine, like some sort of network server

 

Think of it this way. Take all 2000 processors and memory out of those 2000 machines. Build a new motherboard with 2000 cpu sockets and whole bunch of memory slots. Make sure that new mobo has enough superconducting supercooled busses with bandwidth to make use of all that.

 

What do you now have? A "supercomputre".

 

That's one thing clustering ordinary machines can do on the cheap.

[duanester]

so theroretictly it will run software or any application simultaneously as a collective?

 

if so thats amazing

[tito]

so theroretictly it will run software or any application simultaneously as a collective?

 

if so thats amazing

 

Yes, many computers acting as one. Sharing the workload

 

The problem in realistic use is say you had a task which need 1hz of processing for one second to complete.

 

Then one normal computer could do it in a fraction of a second, an imeasurably small amount of time, for the example we will say 0.0001 seconds!

 

However, if it were a two computer cluster cluster 0.5hz/one second of the task would be sent to the other computer, processed there, sent back and interpreted by the first computer.

 

This might take 0.3 seconds.

 

If it were huge amounts of data then it would be enough to justify that time it takes to traverse the cluster.

 

Geddit?

Edited November 12, 2006 by tito

[John 44]

so theroretictly it will run software or any application simultaneously as a collective?

 

if so thats amazing

 

Yes, that's it's design goal when setup and used for computing as opposed to say file serving.

 

But if you fire up that beast and check your email, chat with your buddies, and hang out at the pit, you might think you were on a P1/75 MHz/16MB ram machine.

[duanester]

i gettit

[John 44]

tito, you typed all that in the same or less time than I typed my little tidbit. That's why IM is no good for me. I'm thinking way ahead of what I can type, hence the sometimes garble.

[tito]

I type faster than I think!!!!

[xXenXx]

lol Tito if that were true, you'd either have an incredibly slow mind, or impossibly fast fingers.

[Maxst2]

That is my case as well... but i type better than I talk

 

Well i scored one machine- old p2. And im gonna get the linux on that tonight and play around.

 

Im going to have 4 nodes and one master- my larger HP machine.

 

Mainly im just gonna let it run seti AND [email protected] when im done. This is a learning experiment. It'll let me learn some things about linux and possiblity of customizing linux once i learn enough.

[tito]

lol Tito if that were true, you'd either have an incredibly slow mind, or impossibly fast fingers.

 

Luckily it isn't true, because neither are very complimentary!

[tito]

This is a learning experiment. It'll let me learn some things about linux and possiblity of customizing linux once i learn enough.

 

A good idea, just don't expect much production for a while.

 

Projects to learn new skills are always a good idea in linux.

[Maxst2]

I dunno, that cluster knoppix could make everything pretty easy.

[John 44]

I haven't decided what I'm going to do yet. I have a couple of identical 2.6 GHz socket 478 P4's in dead mobos. I'm looking at a couple of cheap boards, ~$50/each at Newegg and may buy them.

 

I've been meaning to build a couple of inexpensive boxes anyway. So after playing with a cluster for awhile, they'll make nice cheap individual machines.

[Maxst2]

i feel like a noob... I cant get the ISO's to burn on disk right to boot up... help

[John 44]

Well, several possible reasons . Your downloaded isos are no good, aka, "a bad download." Or, you didn't burn them "as an image" of a cd; you may have burned them as a large file ON the cd. Could be hardware/BIOS boot issues?

[Maxst2]

It would almost be easier for one to post the steps to get a downloaded ISO file to be put onto a CD.

 

Im sick and energy to recall what i have done into typing isnt gonna happen..lol