On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 02:31:39PM -0700, Fred Cisin
> I'm having a little difficulty visualizing "The World's Top
> as being a single chip CPU on a motherboard.
> When did "supercomputers" become single board devices?
> "Put the CPU on a daughterboard"?
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013, Pontus Pihlgren wrote:
Do you really think I'm that stupid?
Of course not. I acknowledge and respect your expertise.
And, I certainly had no intention of offending you.
I've poked my head into plenty of
supercomputers, in fact I have the very rack of a top500 list entry in
I'm not even going to reply to that...
That's why I was so incredulous and taken aback by your OFF THE WALL
(YOU were the one who made those statatements - full post below)
I even speculated that my whole perception of such machines was wrong and
that things had gone through extraordinary changes that I was unaware of!
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.
What anciliary functions?
http servers? storage? The performance per
watt is way of[f] for that kind of application.
Hopefully, the machines won't hit the recyclers
but end up in hands of
students, less fortunate and hobbyists.
Let's hope so, but I am cynical about
realized that inside one of those racks there was a
CPU chip plugged into a socket.
Again? This is close to insulting.
Then WHY DID YOU SAY IT?
Those are YOUR statements that you are being offended by!
If you had meant them metaphorically, then I'm sorry, but I missed that,
and humbly request that in the future, for the sake of those of us less
enlightened, that you pepper your metaphors with phrases such as "It is as
if", "Similarly to", "by analogy".
If you were joking, or being sarcastic, that also did not come across.
You COULD HAVE said, "Designing upgradeability imposes some constraints on
performance. In "extreme performance", there is a greater need for
custom components obviating any possibility of modularity. It is not like
an S100 backplane, where components can be interchangeable and
upgradeable. Thus, those constraints would be intolerable."
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
Here is the full post that referred to supercomputer CPUs in sockets and
---------------------------- Start ---------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 22:43:43 +0200
From: Pontus <pontus at update.uu.se>
Reply-To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: [windows-1252] World^Rs top supercomputer from
^Q[windows-1252] 09 is now obsolete, will be dismantled
[ The following text is in the "windows-1252" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
On 04/01/2013 02:33 AM, Fred Cisin wrote:
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,
upgrade incrementally and components while keeping the
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
What is left? Power supplies and fans? yeah, those probably have a four
more years in them. Probably would make sense to reuse.
----------------------- End ----------------------------