I wonder
when they will all move from Linux to the superior micro kernel in Hurd.
This fall's Top500 supercomputer sites ranking continues the smackdown between massively parallel supercomputers based on CPUs and somewhat less-massive machines using a mix of CPUs and accelerators. In this round, the hybrid ceepie-geepies, which mix CPUs and GPU coprocessors, have the CPU-only boxes on the ropes – and the …
I'm not sure we needed all that stuff carved up every which way when a simple link to the "select your Top 500 filters" form here (where no doubt the author got his stats from) would do:
http://www.top500.org/statistics/sublist/
Also, the lack of discussion of OS'es in the article was surprising - here's some fascinating OS stats left out:
* The top 36 supercomputers in the world all run Linux. The shameful first non-Linux entry at number 37 is from the UK :-( Mind you, it was IBM's AIX, so it's not all so bad.
* Linux has 469 of the top 500 spots - a massive 93.8%!
* Windows has 3 spots (0.6%), which either it can't scale to very high numbers of cores or that the licensing is expensive. Ine of those is Microsoft's Azure so that's free to MS :-) No idea why the article highlighted this one when it's in 165th place. The lowly position - 63 places behind Amazon's rival AWS - bizarrely wasn't mentioned in the article!
* BSD has one solitary entry...so it is dying after all :-)
I was like .. what's 17.59 Petaflop/s looking like ?
If we substitute a calculation for a grain of sand , 1 micro liter volume per grain
well lo and behold .. that makes for a second 17,590,000,000 liters of sand
roughly 23 million cubic yards : in the end .. it takes 237 seconds to account for all
the grains in a cubic mile of sand. ( or so .. )
An incredible number when it's breoken down in terms we can put our heads around .
I told you it was time lost :)
ric