Xserve G5s to Replace PowerMacs in 'Big Mac'?

[supatekmedia88]

Does anybody think that it would be a good idea to be
able to rent time on the Big Mac to do film/3D/compositing
renders? It would be great to have the shots and materials ready,
and bring your team to the site for a week or month.

 

[kenaustus]

I wouldn't be surprised if VT doesn't run them for a while and actually get some work done - which was their original goal. During that time VT (and Apple) would also continue to develop the "BigMac user manual" for others who want to join the party.

I think the ideal time to make the trade-in would be when the 3 Ghz chips are available, providing a significant increase in performance. That gives time for developing a rather impressive package for Apple to sell to other schools.

The "old" G5s will be an interesting option for many who would like a part of history or could be offered to VT students at a good price - an approach that other universities could also look at in the future.

 

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by the_mole1314
I could see this happening, but VT spent tons of money on ventalation and other things. Don't you think that they would try to get the most out of it and not just go for a cooler processor?

Well, the issue is that they may have spent a ton of money on the ventilation system, but there is also the on going monthly cost of running it. If they have a cooler system then the costs of that system go down, so they would save money in the long run - money they could put towards expanding the cluster.

 

[nagromme]

The reaston VT paid full price; are the racks right?

I can believe this MIGHT be true. And if not, logically VT will SOMEDAY upgrade anyway. (Personally I'd wait for Xserve G6s, but that's probably not a deal Apple could promise!)

VT apparently payed full edu price for the G5s. That always surprised me. Why didn't Apple cut them a deal, like they would for a big laptop program or other volume buy? Did VT just not negotiate at all? Did Apple not see how valuable a win VT would be, well worth offering a discount to?

This may be the answer: they'd pay full price and get G5s for the initial ranking, but Apple would swallow the depreciation later and allow them to be traded in for XServes. (An Xserve Cluster Node costs about the same as a top Power Mac.)

So maybe Apple DID cut a deal, and we're now seeing what they deal is. (Who knows when the transition might be made--it need not happen right away--especially considering the labor needed.)

Meanwhile, cost comparisons of Big Mac will remain valid: the discount Apple swallowed applies to the "extra phase" off building the tower-based cluster to meet the deadline. But another organization looking to build the same cluster would just go right for Xserves--this getting just what VT ended up with, and for the same price.

If this truly was planned all along, then the racks those PowerMacs are sitting on ought to be standard width, Xserve-ready once the shelves are taken out. Can anyone tell if that's the case?

(Of course there would be a lot of racks left over!)

 

[Tommy Wasabi]

Finally - a good idea

Originally posted by kenaustus


I think the ideal time to make the trade-in would be when the 3 Ghz chips are available, providing a significant increase in performance. That gives time for developing a rather impressive package for Apple to sell to other schools.

The "old" G5s will be an interesting option for many who would like a part of history or could be offered to VT students at a good price - an approach that other universities could also look at in the future.

Now that is great thinking. Think about that for a second. Breaking up a super computer and selling pieces of it to students that could continue to use it for their work. The university could roll over their inventory every 1-2 years and students would benefit - IOW, the university continues to get state of the art at no cost! (the students in essence pay for the computer).

 

[Viv]

1100 refurbs hitting the market place would mean losing 1100 new G5 sales?

Why not move them on to the campus desktops and add them back in to a XServe cluster via the new XGrid?

Viv

 

[Dreadnought]

The racks is what I am thinking of also. They are all custum built. And in every shelf and metal of the racks there is cooling. So, they can't just get a couple of shelfs out! I wonder if this is true! If it is, they probably will have to rebuilt everything, including the arco/cooling. Don't think they are going to do this! Especially if they have a couple of projects running on Big Mac (sounds a bit like we are talking about Mcdonalds, doesn't it?!)

 

[tsunake]

Re: Finally - a good idea

Originally posted by Tommy Wasabi
Now that is great thinking. Think about that for a second. Breaking up a super computer and selling pieces of it to students that could continue to use it for their work. The university could roll over their inventory every 1-2 years and students would benefit - IOW, the university continues to get state of the art at no cost! (the students in essence pay for the computer).

Not to burst your bubble, but the students already directly pay for the supercomputer.

 

[ghutchis]

Originally posted by BenRoethig
I wonder if it will be any faster with Xgrid?

I don't think you understand what Xgrid represents. It's a very nice, user-friendly interface to clustering protocols like MPI and allows Rendezvous discovery of new nodes.

This is great--it makes setting up a cluster easier and allows smaller groups to use desktop CPU resources for clustering horsepower.

It does not necessarily improve existing cluster technology. If I run an existing Xserve, G5, or other cluster I already have the equivalent to Xgrid. (Several such programs exist, including Sun GridEngine, OpenPBS, IBM LoadLeveler, etc.).

I think Xgrid is cool, but I don't see existing clusters switching.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

um, didn't they say Apple would swap one for one the G5 PM for G5 XServes?

That means the G5 PMs go back to Apple.....

.....and then maybe to Pixar?

D

 

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
um, didn't they say Apple would swap one for one the G5 PM for G5 XServes?

That means the G5 PMs go back to Apple.....

.....and then maybe to Pixar?

D

I'd rather one of them replace the Compaq 8000z in my basement.

 

[desdomg]

I think it would be bad PR for both parties if the G5s were now replaced with xServes.

At a later date have a cluster somewhere else with Xserves, but not negate all the positive publicity that Apple have with big Mac by replacing it only a few months after introduction.

 

[Grimace]

I think it would be a great marketing move if Apple sold those used G5s to the students of VA tech. They all know the buzz - let them try it out and convert people who may already be on the fence!

 

[danbirchall]

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
If they can manage to get 30% more CPUs in the racks (which I don't doubt is physically possible) they could get the #2 Super Computer.

30%? Hahaha. Aim higher. One of VT's homebrew racks holds 12 G5's (4 shelves, 3 per shelf) for a total of 24 CPU's. A standard 42U rack (and VT's may very well be higher than 42U) holds 42 Xserves, for a total of 84 CPU's. That's 3.5 times the processor density, or 250% more CPUs in the racks.

Load those racks with Xserve G5's and you're looking at numbers very close to those posted by the Earth Simulator.

 

[Why Not]

Will not work, unfortunately

As they have said in many places, the racks are indeed completely custom. They are not standard width from what I can see, as they sport three G5s side-by-side, which would equate to more than 24 inches, whereas standard racks are 19 inches wide. This is not to mention all of the specialized cooling within the racks that were specifically built for for that chassis. The only option I could see happening is finding a way to mount them vertically with specialized shelving that acts as a rack, but my guess is that the cost for that would be higher than replacing the racks themselves.

I could see Apple funding the project at this point, now that they know exactly what the possibilities are. Before this was brought to fruition, it would have been a very politically incorrect thing to just give a University that kind of month, but now that it has become fashionable to sport Apples as a high-end super-cluster, I could very easily see Apple paying for some, if not all of either a retrofit or a completely new structure. It would be essentially putting the money where their mouth is.

 

[ZildjianKX]

These seems like too much of a pain in the ass to do... after all the man hours and preperations that went into getting the G5 cluster up... and that means they did all that work for less than 6 months of use, just to tear it down for an Xserve cluster? Not to mention they had to open up ever G5 tower to install the PCI cards, and that they would have to move and repackage 1,100 towers... which weighs about 66 tons! And all the setup they had to do for each tower software-wise... and that they would have to redue all this for each Xserve...

 

[Shrike_Priest]

I could see this having several benefits that make it possible for Apple to do this.

A. The Xserves would use a lot less power, which would lower the maintenance costs for Va Tech.
B. The Xserves would take up a lot less space.
C. With rackmounts, it would be a lot easier to add a few cabinets at a later date. whereas the G5's are quite cumbersome to switch around. and adding just 9 of them would take up about as much room as adding 42 Xserves.
D. They have cooling/cable management etc ready, and could use that off the bat.

From a management point-of-view, I think Xserves are a hell of a lot easier to handle.

And with smaller spaces to fill, they get more room over. so if they feel like it, they can just add a few more nodes later on (when the 3Ghz PPC 980 Xserves arrive for instance), and in that way earn another spot on the Top 500 list.

If apple can get the Big Mac to number two, only bested by Earth Simulator, then they have a HUGE achievement on their hands, and it'd be great PR.

 

[macshark]

Yeah, VT is using a proprietary interconnect that requires PCI-X cards to be installed in each machine. It would be a pain to open up all those PowerMac boxes, take the interconnect cards out and re-install them into the G5 XServes.

As others have pointed out, the amount of time and effort that was spent to build the custom racks, put everything together and make sure it works is probably worth more than the value of the machines at this point.

Moreover, even though they may be able to fit more than 3X the number of G5 XServes in the same amount of space, even with the 90nm processors, the resulting complex would need much more power and generate much more heat...

G5 XServes would be a much better fit for building a new compute farm instead of one that is only 6 months old.

 

[york2600]

Anyone know the exact speed they're getting right now?

 

[FlamDrag]

VT did some serious customization of those machines as evidenced by the photos that were posted. It wouldn't be as easy as simply unplugging them and letting someone else buy it. They would have to get all the labor to make them at least semi-normal boxes again.

 

[MacRAND]

Xserve G5s to Replace PowerMacs in 'Big Mac'?

Originally posted by Macrumors
The migration plan was reportedly part of the original PowerMac deal. The big question, of course, is what happens to the original 1100 PowerMac G5s?

While it is interesting to speculate on what will happen to the "original 1100 PowerMac G5" towers, what seems to be catching everyone's imagination is how is VT going to accomplish the "migration"?
1. Unlike the original mass installation, the "migration" can easily be accomplished in segments.
2. A look at the racks suggests that they are simply bolted together and that the veritical portions can easily be converted to standard racks for Xserve boxes by replacing or modifying the horizontal connectors. http://don.cc.vt.edu/
3. Before shutting down any portion of the existing Big Mac cluster, it would be an easy matter to perfect the design for the Xserves by ADDING 42 to 48 of them in NEWLY designed racks before disassembly of any of the old G5s. VT has the luxury of having plenty of time to test the Xserves to be added to their system (air conditioning, wiring, etc.), including any upgraded configurations that they have discovered since implementing the original design, before putting them online.
4. Once the first group of new G5 Xserves are on line, a like number of old G5s could be removed from service, PCI boards removed, racks reconstructed, and another group of Xserves installed, and so on.
5. After the first 2 installations of Xserve G5s, VT would have a very good idea what it is going to take in materials, manpower, and time to complete each segment.
6. Likewise, Apple need only supply 50 to 100 G5 Xserves as needed over a much more extended period of time (weeks instead of days) than was possible for the original deadline oriented massive install.

So, will another university step up to buy hundreds of G5 Macs from the VT experiment when G5 Xserves will now be readily available with less heating problems and substantially less space required? It wouldn't be worth it, a Buyer would be going backwards technologically and taking on a serious & expensive installment headache. The G5 Xserves have obsolesed the G5 towers (too big & too hot) for massive cluster purposes.

If Apple took the old G5s back, refurbished them, added an engraving "0007 out of 1100" and sold them at a decent discount including AppleCare for 3 years free, who wouldn't want a piece of the first Apple SuperComputer as a memorial to Apple's 20th Anniversary?

 

[Steven1621]

considering that they are equipped and configured to be a part of a supercomputer, i can see apple breaking it up into several small nodes or, as others suggested, just another Big Mac elsewhere.

 

[suzerain]

basically confirmed months ago

This was basically confirmed by Varadarajan himself, months ago. While giving a talk about Big Mac, he was asked about ECC RAM, since the G5 isn't capable of using it.

His response, which I found odd at the time, was [paraphrasing]: "I believe that our software will route around errors, but we will be migrating to ECC RAM in the future anyway."

Well, there was, at the time, no way they could migrate to ECC RAM (and stay on Apple hardware), so it was obvious -- to me, at least -- that something was up, and the XServe G5 seemed like the most logical solution.

 

[arn]

Re: basically confirmed months ago

Originally posted by suzerain
This was basically confirmed by Varadarajan himself, months ago. While giving a talk about Big Mac, he was asked about ECC RAM, since the G5 isn't capable of using it.

His response, which I found odd at the time, was [paraphrasing]: "I believe that our software will route around errors, but we will be migrating to ECC RAM in the future anyway."

I remember this talk but don't remember him saying they were migrating to EEC ram.

link?

arn

 

[wizard]

Re: Xserve G5s to Replace PowerMacs in 'Big Mac'?

Not to burst a bubble here but who would be willing to pay extra for a PC that has had heavy usage and will likely be outdated by the time they are available.

Not to burst anybodies bubble here, but if VT is truely thinking about migrating to rack mount units, it does appear that they made a mistake in purchasing G5's in the first place. Can you imaigne anybody in business building a super computer and then telling his boss 6 months later that the physical plant has to be rebuilt because they will migrate to STANDARD hardware. The standard of course being 19" EIA racks. Only in higher education can one get away with this.

Dave

Originally posted by MacRAND


If Apple took the old G5s back, refurbished them, added an engraving "0007 out of 1100" and sold them at a decent discount including AppleCare for 3 years free, who wouldn't want a piece of the first Apple SuperComputer as a memorial to Apple's 20th Anniversary?