2 Apr
2013
2 Apr
'13
2:31 p.m.
> Built, used for four years, and now DISMANTLED?
> What is wrong with their fundamental architecture?
> Can't they design one where more could be added to keep up with needs, and
> upgrade incrementally and components while keeping the overall machine?
On
Tue, 2 Apr 2013, Pontus wrote:
What would you replace? The CPU? Then you need a new
socket and then you
need a new motherboard. I suppose you could hold it against them that
they didn't make the CPU's pin compatible, but that's only viable for a
few years. The pin count changes as more and more features are moved
onboard the CPU. And I suppose you could hold it against them that they
didn't put the CPU on a daughterboard, but then the cost of
manufacturing of the daughterboard would probably be close to a whole
motherboard. Much easier to throw out and replace and let somebody else
worry about assembly.
Ram speeds go up, so you want to replace those when you get a new CPU as
well.
What is left? Power supplies and fans? yeah, those probably have a four
more years in them. Probably would make sense to reuse.
I'm having a little difficulty visualizing "The World's Top
Supercomputer"
as being a single chip CPU on a motherboard.
When did "supercomputers" become single board devices?
"Put the CPU on a daughterboard"?
I'm kinda stuck thinking in terms of adding another rack that
supplants PART of the CPU functions with faster, and relegating
the rack(s) that it replaced to anciliary functions.
I never realized that inside one of those racks there was a
CPU chip plugged into a socket.