Might be a book that even R. Myers can love :-)

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Jim Carlson and Jerry Huck's "Itanium Rising" book as described in the
> following article:
>
> http://www.shannonknowshpc.com/stories.php?story=04/06/14/7665801
>

I made a post to comp.arch about this book with the subject line
"Stupefying hubris from Intel/HP about Itanium" to comp.arch on March 1,
2003. Del Cecchi had previously pointed out the existence of the book
on October 2, 2002, but it's not clear that anyone but me read (well at
least skimmed) it. In any case, I was the only one to say anything
subtantive about the book's contents. If I weren't so interested in
self-description (what people and companies say about themselves and
why), I would have been tremendously annoyed at the book.

Even leaving aside some reasonably subtle technological questions (some
of which have been discussed on comp.arch), _Itanium_Rising_ can't tell
the really interesting story because its authors would probably get
fired for even trying to tell it. Aside from building a processor with
an ISA that wouldn't be subject to any of Intel's cross-licensing
agreements, what did the principals in this drama really think they were
buying into? Even the history of the internal presentations that were
made would be fascinating. What did they think they knew, and when did
they think they knew it? ;-)

RM
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
> I made a post to comp.arch about this book with the subject line
> "Stupefying hubris from Intel/HP about Itanium" to comp.arch on March
> 1, 2003. Del Cecchi had previously pointed out the existence of the
> book on October 2, 2002, but it's not clear that anyone but me read
> (well at least skimmed) it. In any case, I was the only one to say
> anything subtantive about the book's contents. If I weren't so
> interested in self-description (what people and companies say about
> themselves and why), I would have been tremendously annoyed at the
> book.

Okay, then maybe R. Myers might not like this book. :)

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> ... If I weren't so
>>interested in self-description (what people and companies say about
>>themselves and why), I would have been tremendously annoyed at the
>>book.
>
>
> Okay, then maybe R. Myers might not like this book. :)
>

But I am intensely interested in self-description, I'm interested in
what makes grand technical initiatives succeed or fail, and I think it's
more interesting to say what you think is going on before all the horses
have crossed the finish line than it is to be a smug historian. :).

Like the book or not like is more or less beside the point. I was
stunned that Intel/HP let such a daringly unrepentant bit of
self-promotion see daylight in view of the disappointing performance of
Itanium, but even that (fairly reasonable, I think) reaction is a
distraction. The fact is that the book _was_ published, and without
corporate gloss or apologia, as far as I know: just, here it is, the
most wonderful processor ever, just as we said it would be.

Leave out the technical issues. If Intel/HP have to climb down from the
fortress they've built around Itanium, how will they ever pull it off?
It would be like IBM admitting that maybe System 360 wasn't such a great
idea, after all (which, who knows, maybe it wasn't).

RM
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:29:29 GMT, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Leave out the technical issues. If Intel/HP have to climb down from the
>fortress they've built around Itanium, how will they ever pull it off?
>It would be like IBM admitting that maybe System 360 wasn't such a great
>idea, after all (which, who knows, maybe it wasn't).

Wasn't it "Stretch" which wasn't a good idea... preceding S/360. I guess
there was a lot of folklore back then too.:)

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
> Leave out the technical issues. If Intel/HP have to climb down from the
> fortress they've built around Itanium, how will they ever pull it off?
> It would be like IBM admitting that maybe System 360 wasn't such a great
> idea, after all (which, who knows, maybe it wasn't).

Whatever one thinks about the technical merits of S/360,
the commercial success was undeniable. The same could be
said of x86.

I very much doubt that IA64 (Itanium) will ever enjoy such
commercial success. It's more likely to go down that path
heavily travelled by Intel after 432 and i860.

-- Robert
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:29:29 GMT, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Leave out the technical issues. If Intel/HP have to climb down from the
>>fortress they've built around Itanium, how will they ever pull it off?
>>It would be like IBM admitting that maybe System 360 wasn't such a great
>>idea, after all (which, who knows, maybe it wasn't).
>
>
> Wasn't it "Stretch" which wasn't a good idea... preceding S/360. I guess
> there was a lot of folklore back then too.:)
>

Stretch just precedes my actually becoming conscious of computers in any
but the most theoretical of ways, so I know only the written record--no
folklore. Branch prediction, speculation, out of order execution,
hardware prefetch, and fused FMAC: less than two hundred thousand
transistors. What's not to like? :).

RM
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Redelmeier wrote:

>
> Whatever one thinks about the technical merits of S/360,
> the commercial success was undeniable. The same could be
> said of x86.
>
> I very much doubt that IA64 (Itanium) will ever enjoy such
> commercial success. It's more likely to go down that path
> heavily travelled by Intel after 432 and i860.
>

You may be right. I'm just having a really hard time imagining how this
is going to go down. Intel's goal is to 360-ize as much enterprise code
as it can (only for IA64, obviously). How well they are doing that, how
well they can do that, is something that I just cannot judge, although
it is apparent things are not going according to plan at the moment.

George Macdonald said something about his own experience with Alpha (and
by extension, with Itanium) that sounded absolutely pivotal: software
developers don't want to develop for a platform that isn't going to make
them money.

That's easy, you're thinking: pass on Itanium. Not so fast, buckaroo.
One future: x86-64=Open source, low rent, lots of volume, no margin.
Itanium=Proprietary, expensive, low volume, high margin. If you look at
the Intel branding ads aimed at corporate decision-makers, Xeon is
"productivity" and Itanium is "enterprise." Who wants to be
"productivity" when one could be "enterprise?" Especially if the "who"
is a manager, to whom "productivity" is something that is delivered by
nameless underlings. :).

They'll never get away with it, you're sputtering, and you may be right,
but Intel shows no signs of abandoning its strategy.

RM
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Restampedesswrote:

> Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Leave out the technical issues. If Intel/HP have to climb down
>> from the fortress they've built around Itanium, how will they
>> ever pull it off? It would be like IBM admitting that maybe
>> System 360 wasn't such a great idea, after all (which, who knows,
>> maybe it wasn't).
>
> Whatever one thinks about the technical merits of S/360,
> the commercial success was undeniable. The same could be
> said of x86.
>

Undeniable, indeed. That's *MY* basis for supporting K8.

IBM tried to kill S/360 with 'FS', just as Intel has tried to kill
x86 with Itanic. Both companies did it for internal reasons,
totally disregarding customer's wishes. "Amazingly", neither went
over well with the customer set. Both 3x0 and x86 are still with
us (after forty and twenty years, respectively). ...evolution over
revolution.

> I very much doubt that IA64 (Itanium) will ever enjoy such
> commercial success. It's more likely to go down that path
> heavily travelled by Intel after 432 and i860.

....as AMD64 stampedes the mess Intel's tried to create. History
does repeat. Those who try to harness history will make money.
Those who try to harness their customers deserve an ugly death.

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote in part:
> One future: x86-64=Open source, low rent, lots of volume, no margin.
> Itanium=Proprietary, expensive, low volume, high margin.

Both entirely true.

> If you look at the Intel branding ads aimed at corporate
> decision-makers, Xeon is "productivity" and Itanium is "enterprise."
> Who wants to be "productivity" when one could be "enterprise?"

I doubt even the dinosaur brains will swallow that swill.

Two words: "second source". No-one wants to be dependant on a
single supplier. PC vs Mac. S/360 succeeded mostly by offering
a uniform platform with a promise of continuation (backward
compatibility) that attracted development.

x86/WinNT (maybe Linux) holds that position now. What compelling
argument is available for IA64? What performance? 64 bits is
available ~painlessly with x86-64.

> They'll never get away with it, you're sputtering, and you may
> be right, but Intel shows no signs of abandoning its strategy.

I don't sputter. I know the market will decide. Mistakes get
punished, and stubborn fools commensurately.

-- Robert
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:19:39 GMT, Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid>
wrote:

>Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Leave out the technical issues. If Intel/HP have to climb down from the
>> fortress they've built around Itanium, how will they ever pull it off?
>> It would be like IBM admitting that maybe System 360 wasn't such a great
>> idea, after all (which, who knows, maybe it wasn't).
>
>Whatever one thinks about the technical merits of S/360,
>the commercial success was undeniable.

I think the technical merits were right up there as well.
What other system had a control store that required an air-pump to operate?;-)

/daytripper
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"K Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote in message
news:BvWdnVArbK4Kak3dRVn-sw@adelphia.com...
> IIRC the Cyber6600 came significantly after April '64 too.

According to the first sentence of Chapt 43 of Sieworek, Bell, and
Newell's "Computer Structures: Principles and Examples", the first
6600 was delivered in Oct 64. The 6600 project was begun in the
summer of 1960.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:

>
> I guess it's likely folklore but I know that when the 7074 was to be
> replaced in a certain office of a multinational corp in 1967, the S/360 was
> the obvious and natural replacement for the DP side of things; OTOH there
> was serious consideration given to Univac 1108 or CDC 6600 for technical &
> scientific work, which had often been done on a 7094... and often at
> extortionate time-lease terms. IOW it wasn't clear that the S/360 could
> hack it for the latter - turned out that it was dreadfully slow but near
> tolerable... if people worked late:-( and got much better later. Certainly
> the performance of S/360 fell way short of expected performance as "sold" -
> I can bore you with the details if you wish.:)
>
> The CDC 6000 Series didn't become Cyber Series till ~1972[hazy]; before
> that there was 6200, 6400, 6500 and 6600... and there was the notorious
> 7600 in between. Dates of working hardware are difficult to pin down -
> supposedly secret confidential data often went astray and announced
> availability and deliverable were umm, fungible. The story is probably a
> bit folklorish but no doubt that IBM was seriously threatened by Univac and
> CDC in the technical computing arena.
>

Threatened? :). The outlines of the folklore you report is the
folklore I started my career with: CDC (later Cray) for hydro codes, IBM
for W-2 forms. Lynn Wheeler's posts to comp.arch have helped me to
understand how it was that IBM sold machines at all, because, as far as
I could tell, they were expensive and slow, JCL was descended from some
language used in Mordor, and the batch system was designed for people
who knew ahead of time what resources a job would need (that is to say,
it was designed for people counting W-2 forms and not for people doing
research). My impression of IBM sofware was fixed by my early
experience with the Scientific Subroutine Package, and even the
compilers were buggy for the kinds of things I wanted to use--no problem
for financial applications, where there was (as yet) no requirement for
double precision complex arithmetic.

One is tempted to summarize the Stretch/360 experiences as: "How IBM
learned to love banks and to hate the bomb." In retrospect, IBM's
misadventure with Stretch might be regarded as a stroke of luck. An
analyst too close to the action might have regarded IBM's being pushed
out of technical computing in the days of the Space Race as a distaster,
but the heady days of "If it's technical, it must be worth doing" were
actually over, and IBM was in the more lucrative line of business, anyway.

RM
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:49:37 GMT, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>
>>
>> I guess it's likely folklore but I know that when the 7074 was to be
>> replaced in a certain office of a multinational corp in 1967, the S/360 was
>> the obvious and natural replacement for the DP side of things; OTOH there
>> was serious consideration given to Univac 1108 or CDC 6600 for technical &
>> scientific work, which had often been done on a 7094... and often at
>> extortionate time-lease terms. IOW it wasn't clear that the S/360 could
>> hack it for the latter - turned out that it was dreadfully slow but near
>> tolerable... if people worked late:-( and got much better later. Certainly
>> the performance of S/360 fell way short of expected performance as "sold" -
>> I can bore you with the details if you wish.:)
>>
>> The CDC 6000 Series didn't become Cyber Series till ~1972[hazy]; before
>> that there was 6200, 6400, 6500 and 6600... and there was the notorious
>> 7600 in between. Dates of working hardware are difficult to pin down -
>> supposedly secret confidential data often went astray and announced
>> availability and deliverable were umm, fungible. The story is probably a
>> bit folklorish but no doubt that IBM was seriously threatened by Univac and
>> CDC in the technical computing arena.
>>
>
>Threatened? :). The outlines of the folklore you report is the
>folklore I started my career with: CDC (later Cray) for hydro codes, IBM
>for W-2 forms. Lynn Wheeler's posts to comp.arch have helped me to
>understand how it was that IBM sold machines at all, because, as far as
>I could tell, they were expensive and slow, JCL was descended from some
>language used in Mordor, and the batch system was designed for people
>who knew ahead of time what resources a job would need (that is to say,
>it was designed for people counting W-2 forms and not for people doing
>research). My impression of IBM sofware was fixed by my early
>experience with the Scientific Subroutine Package, and even the
>compilers were buggy for the kinds of things I wanted to use--no problem
>for financial applications, where there was (as yet) no requirement for
>double precision complex arithmetic.

I remember, coming from working with S/360, getting my eyes opened when I
first saw a 6600 "installation" - terminals<gawp> (actually they called
them VDUs or something like that), in client cubicles, connected by wires
to the computer on a different floor... where you could actually page
through files. Clients got charged a bundle to use them mind you. I
recall saying to my colleagues at the time: "hey maybe one of those days
we'll all have one of those err, VDU thingys on every desk and we'll
program straight into the file on the computer and look at the results
there too - no more coding forms, punch cards or listings etc." They all
laughed like hell.

As for JCL, I once had a JCL evangelist explain to me how he could use JCL
in ways which wasn't possible on systems with simpler control statements -
conditional job steps, subsitution of actual file names for dummy
parameters etc... "catalogued procedures"?[hazy again] The guy was stuck
in his niche of "job steps" where data used to be massaged from one set of
tapes to another and then on in another step to be remassaged into some
other record format for storing on another set of tape... all those steps
being necessary, essentially because of the sequential tape storage. We'd
had disks for a while but all they did was emulate what they used to do
with tapes - he just didn't get it.

>One is tempted to summarize the Stretch/360 experiences as: "How IBM
>learned to love banks and to hate the bomb." In retrospect, IBM's
>misadventure with Stretch might be regarded as a stroke of luck. An
>analyst too close to the action might have regarded IBM's being pushed
>out of technical computing in the days of the Space Race as a distaster,
>but the heady days of "If it's technical, it must be worth doing" were
>actually over, and IBM was in the more lucrative line of business, anyway.

So much for analysts - plus ça change....

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Felger Carbon wrocontemporariesiams" <krw@att.biz> wrote in message
> news:BvWdnVArbK4Kak3dRVn-sw@adelphia.com...
>> IIRC the Cyber6600 came significantly after April '64 too.
>
> According to the first sentence of Chapt 43 of Sieworek, Bell, and
> Newell's "Computer Structures: Principles and Examples", the
> first
> 6600 was delivered in Oct 64. The 6600 project was begun in the
> summer of 1960.

Ok, so they were contemporaries. ...hardly that IBM was somehow
shocked buy the 6600, so came out with the '360. The design point
for the '360 was to have a consistent ISA from top to bottom, even
though the underlying hardware was *quite* different. *That* was
the stroke of genius. Anyone can do amazing things with hardware
if one has a clean sheet of paper. ...and that was the norm at the
time. S/360 acknowledged that there was something more important
than hardware. ...and that is why it's still here.

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:

> George Macdonald wrote:
>
>>
>> I guess it's likely folklore but I know that when the 7074 was to
>> be replaced in a certain office of a multinational corp in 1967,
>> the S/360 was the obvious and natural replacement for the DP side
>> of things; OTOH there was serious consideration given to Univac
>> 1108 or CDC 6600 for technical & scientific work, which had often
>> been done on a 7094... and often at
>> extortionate time-lease terms. IOW it wasn't clear that the
>> S/360 could hack it for the latter - turned out that it was
>> dreadfully slow but near
>> tolerable... if people worked late:-( and got much better later.
>> Certainly the performance of S/360 fell way short of expected
>> performance as "sold" - I can bore you with the details if you
>> wish.:)
>>
>> The CDC 6000 Series didn't become Cyber Series till ~1972[hazy];
>> before that there was 6200, 6400, 6500 and 6600... and there was
>> the notorious
>> 7600 in between. Dates of working hardware are difficult to pin
>> down - supposedly secret confidential data often went astray and
>> announced
>> availability and deliverable were umm, fungible. The story is
>> probably a bit folklorish but no doubt that IBM was seriously
>> threatened by Univac and CDC in the technical computing arena.
>>
>
> Threatened? :). The outlines of the folklore you report is the
> folklore I started my career with: CDC (later Cray) for hydro
> codes, IBM
> for W-2 forms. Lynn Wheeler's posts to comp.arch have helped me
> to understand how it was that IBM sold machines at all, because,
> as far as I could tell, they were expensive and slow, JCL was
> descended from some language used in Mordor, and the batch system
> was designed for people who knew ahead of time what resources a
> job would need (that is to say, it was designed for people
> counting W-2 forms and not for people doing
> research). My impression of IBM sofware was fixed by my early
> experience with the Scientific Subroutine Package, and even the
> compilers were buggy for the kinds of things I wanted to use--no
> problem for financial applications, where there was (as yet) no
> requirement for double precision complex arithmetic.
>
> One is tempted to summarize the Stretch/360 experiences as: "How
> IBM
> learned to love banks and to hate the bomb." In retrospect, IBM's
> misadventure with Stretch might be regarded as a stroke of luck.
> An analyst too close to the action might have regarded IBM's being
> pushed out of technical computing in the days of the Space Race as
> a distaster, but the heady days of "If it's technical, it must be
> worth doing" were actually over, and IBM was in the more lucrative
> line of business, anyway.

Ok, answer this question: Where is the money?

....even John Dillinger knew the answer! ;-)

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"K Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote in message
news:7_adndXvA80f10_d4p2dnA@adelphia.com...
>
> Ok, answer this question: Where is the money?
>
> ...even John Dillinger knew the answer! ;-)

Willie Sutton. Not John Dillinger. Gotta get yer Ne'er-do-well's
right. ;-)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

K Williams wrote:

> Robert Myers wrote:
>

<snip>

>>
>>One is tempted to summarize the Stretch/360 experiences as: "How
>>IBM
>>learned to love banks and to hate the bomb." In retrospect, IBM's
>>misadventure with Stretch might be regarded as a stroke of luck.
>>An analyst too close to the action might have regarded IBM's being
>>pushed out of technical computing in the days of the Space Race as
>>a distaster, but the heady days of "If it's technical, it must be
>>worth doing" were actually over, and IBM was in the more lucrative
>>line of business, anyway.
>
>
> Ok, answer this question: Where is the money?
>
> ...even John Dillinger knew the answer! ;-)
>

It is the style of business and not the plentiful supply of money that
makes banks and insurance companies attractive as clients for IBM.
Under the right circumstance, money can pour from the heavens for
national security applications, and it will pour from the heavens for
biotechnology and entertainment. Whatever you may think of that kind of
business, IBM wants a piece of it.

From a technical standpoint, there is no company I know of better
positioned than IBM to dominate high performance computing, the future
of which is not x86 (and not Itanium, either). Will IBM do it? If the
past is any guide, IBM will be skunked again, but there is always a
first time.

RM
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Felger Carbon wrote:

> "K Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote in message
> news:7_adndXvA80f10_d4p2dnA@adelphia.com...
>>
>> Ok, answer this question: Where is the money?
>>
>> ...even John Dillinger knew the answer! ;-)
>
> Willie Sutton. Not John Dillinger. Gotta get yer Ne'er-do-well's
> right. ;-)

Well... I don't go back quite as far as you, Felg. ;-)

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:

> K Williams wrote:
>
>> Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>>One is tempted to summarize the Stretch/360 experiences as: "How
>>>IBM
>>>learned to love banks and to hate the bomb." In retrospect,
>>>IBM's misadventure with Stretch might be regarded as a stroke of
>>>luck. An analyst too close to the action might have regarded
>>>IBM's being pushed out of technical computing in the days of the
>>>Space Race as a distaster, but the heady days of "If it's
>>>technical, it must be worth doing" were actually over, and IBM
>>>was in the more lucrative line of business, anyway.
>>
>>
>> Ok, answer this question: Where is the money?
>>
>> ...even John Dillinger knew the answer! ;-)
>>
>
> It is the style of business and not the plentiful supply of money
> that makes banks and insurance companies attractive as clients for
> IBM.

Certainly. ...and that's *exactly* my point.

> Under the right circumstance, money can pour from the heavens
> for national security applications, and it will pour from the
> heavens for
> biotechnology and entertainment. Whatever you may think of that
> kind of business, IBM wants a piece of it.

Nonsense. IBM does a coupla tens-o-$billions in commercial stuff
each year. There is no defined "government" market that's even
close. Even most government problems can be refined down to
"counting W2's".

> From a technical standpoint, there is no company I know of better
> positioned than IBM to dominate high performance computing, the
> future
> of which is not x86 (and not Itanium, either). Will IBM do it?

IMO, no. ...unless it fits into one of the research niches. The
HPC market is so muddled that IBM would be crazy to risk major
money jumping in. Certainly there is dabbling going on, and if
Uncle is going to fund research there will be someone to soak up
the grant.

> If the past is any guide, IBM will be skunked again, but there is
> always a first time.

You see it differently than the captains of the ship. The money is
where, well, the money is. It's a *lot* more profitable selling
what you know (and have) to customers you know (and need need what
you have), than to risk developing what someone thinks is needed,
but what he's not willing to pay for.

As much as you (and indeed I) may wish otherwise, IBM is *not* in
the risk business these days. If it's not a sure thing it will
simply not be funded. Sure a few bucks for another deep-purple or
a letterbox commercial works...

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

K Williams wrote:

>
> As much as you (and indeed I) may wish otherwise, IBM is *not* in
> the risk business these days. If it's not a sure thing it will
> simply not be funded. Sure a few bucks for another deep-purple or
> a letterbox commercial works...
>

I'm not smart enough to understand what's IBM and what's Wall Street,
but I agree with you that bold initiatives are something we should not
be looking for from IBM, and the wizards in Washington are as keen as
everyone else to buy off the shelf these days.

RM
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:

> K Williams wrote:
>
>>
>> As much as you (and indeed I) may wish otherwise, IBM is *not* in
>> the risk business these days. If it's not a sure thing it will
>> simply not be funded. Sure a few bucks for another deep-purple
>> or a letterbox commercial works...
>>
>
> I'm not smart enough to understand what's IBM and what's Wall
> Street, but I agree with you that bold initiatives are something
> we should not be looking for from IBM, and the wizards in
> Washington are as keen as everyone else to buy off the shelf these
> days.

Exactly. Off-the-shelf is "cheap". ...even if it doesn't work. ;-)

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

K Williams wrote:

> Robert Myers wrote:
>
>
>>K Williams wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As much as you (and indeed I) may wish otherwise, IBM is *not* in
>>>the risk business these days. If it's not a sure thing it will
>>>simply not be funded. Sure a few bucks for another deep-purple
>>>or a letterbox commercial works...
>>>
>>
>>I'm not smart enough to understand what's IBM and what's Wall
>>Street, but I agree with you that bold initiatives are something
>>we should not be looking for from IBM, and the wizards in
>>Washington are as keen as everyone else to buy off the shelf these
>>days.
>
>
> Exactly. Off-the-shelf is "cheap". ...even if it doesn't work. ;-)
>

Is it too optimistic to imagine that we may be coming to some kind of
closure? That you can do so much with off-the-shelf hardware is both an
opportunity and a trap. The opportunity is that you can do more for
less. The trap is that you may not be able to do enough or nearly as
much as you might do if you were a bit more adventurous.

It apparently didn't take too many poundings from clusters of boxes at
supercomputer shows to drive both the customers and the manufacturers of
big iron into full retreat. The benchmark that has been used to create
and celebrate those artificial victories was almost _designed_ to create
such an outcome, and the Washington wizards, understandably tired of
being made fools of, have run up the white flag--with the exception of
the Cray X-1, which didn't get built without significant pressure.

I'm hoping that AMD makes commodity eight-way Opteron work and that it
is popular enough to drive significant market competition. Then my
battle cry will be: don't waste limited research resources trying to be
a clever computer builder--what can you do with whatever you want to
purchase or build that you can't do with an eight-way Opteron?

The possibilities for grand leaps just don't come from plugging
commodity boxes together, or even from plugging boards of commodity
processors together. If you can't make a grand leap, it really isn't
worth the bother (that's the statement that makes enemies for me--people
may not know how to do much else, but they sure do know how to run cable).

Just a few years ago, I thought commodity clusters were a great idea.
The more I look at the problem, the more I believe that off the shelf
should be really off the shelf, not do-it-yourself. It's not that the
do it yourself clusters can't do more for cheap--they can--they just
don't do enough more to make it really worth the bother.

Processors with *Teraflop* capabilities are a reality, and not just in
artificially inflated numbers for game consoles. Not only do those
teraflop chips wipe the floor with x86 and Itanium for the problems you
really need a breakthrough for, they don't need warehouses full of
routers, switches, and cable to get those levels of performance.

Clusters of very low-power chips, a la Blue Gene was not a dumb idea, it
just isn't bold enough--you still need those warehouses, a separate
power plant to provide power and cooling, and _somebody_ is paying for
the real estate, even if it doesn't show up in the price of the machine.
_Maybe_ some combination of Moore's law, network on a chip, and a
breakthrough in board level interconnect could salvage the future of
conventional microprocessors for "supercomputing," but right now, the
future sure looks like streaming processors to me, and not just because
they remind me of the Cray 1.

Streaming processors a slam dunk? Apparently not. They're hard to
program and inflexible. IBM is the builder of choice for them at the
moment. Somebody else, though, will have to come up with the money.

RM
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:

> K Williams wrote:
>
>> Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>>
>>>K Williams wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>As much as you (and indeed I) may wish otherwise, IBM is *not*
>>>>in
>>>>the risk business these days. If it's not a sure thing it will
>>>>simply not be funded. Sure a few bucks for another deep-purple
>>>>or a letterbox commercial works...
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not smart enough to understand what's IBM and what's Wall
>>>Street, but I agree with you that bold initiatives are something
>>>we should not be looking for from IBM, and the wizards in
>>>Washington are as keen as everyone else to buy off the shelf
>>>these days.
>>
>>
>> Exactly. Off-the-shelf is "cheap". ...even if it doesn't work.
>> ;-)
>>
>
> Is it too optimistic to imagine that we may be coming to some kin
>of closure? That you can do so much with off-the-shelf hardware
> is both an opportunity and a trap. The opportunity is that you
> can do more for
> less. The trap is that you may not be able to do enough or nearly
> as much as you might do if you were a bit more adventurous.

Gee, fantasy meets reality, once again. The reality is that what we
have is "good enough". It's up to you softies to make your stuff
fit within the hard realities of physics. That is, it's *all*
about algorithms. Don't expect us hardware types to bail you out
of your problems anymore. We're knocking on the door of hard
physics, so complain to the guys across the Boneyard from MRL.

> It apparently didn't take too many poundings from clusters of
> boxes at supercomputer shows to drive both the customers and the
> manufacturers of
> big iron into full retreat.

Perhaps because *cheap* clusters could solve the "important"
problems, given enough thought? Of course the others are deemed to
be "unimportant", by definition. ...at least until there is a
solution. ;-)

> The benchmark that has been used to
> create and celebrate those artificial victories was almost
> _designed_ to create such an outcome, and the Washington wizards,
> understandably tired of being made fools of, have run up the white
> flag--with the exception of the Cray X-1, which didn't get built
> without significant pressure.

Ok...
>
> I'm hoping that AMD makes commodity eight-way Opteron work and
> that it
> is popular enough to drive significant market competition. Then
> my battle cry will be: don't waste limited research resources
> trying to be a clever computer builder--what can you do with
> whatever you want to purchase or build that you can't do with an
> eight-way Opteron?

I'm hoping for the same. ...albeit for a different reason.

> The possibilities for grand leaps just don't come from plugging
> commodity boxes together, or even from plugging boards of
> commodity
> processors together. If you can't make a grand leap, it really
> isn't worth the bother (that's the statement that makes enemies
> for me--people may not know how to do much else, but they sure do
> know how to run cable).

IMHO, we're not going to see any grand leaps in hardware. We have
some rather hard limits here. "186,000mi/sec isn't just a good
idea, it's the *LAW*", sort of thing.

No doubt were currently running into what ammounts to a technology
speedbump, but there *are* some hard limits were starting to see.
It's up to you algorithm types now. ;-)

> Just a few years ago, I thought commodity clusters were a great
> idea. The more I look at the problem, the more I believe that off
> the shelf
> should be really off the shelf, not do-it-yourself. It's not that
> the do it yourself clusters can't do more for cheap--they
> can--they just don't do enough more to make it really worth the
> bother.

Why should the hardware vendor anticipate what *you* want? You pay,
they listen. This is a simple fact of life.

> Processors with *Teraflop* capabilities are a reality, and not
> just in
> artificially inflated numbers for game consoles. Not only do
> those teraflop chips wipe the floor with x86 and Itanium for the
> problems you really need a breakthrough for, they don't need
> warehouses full of routers, switches, and cable to get those
> levels of performance.

So buy them. I guess I don't understand your problem. They're
reality, so...

> Clusters of very low-power chips, a la Blue Gene was not a dumb
> idea, it just isn't bold enough--you still need those warehouses,
> a separate power plant to provide power and cooling, and
> _somebody_ is paying for the real estate, even if it doesn't show
> up in the price of the machine.
> _Maybe_ some combination of Moore's law, network on a chip, and
> a
> breakthrough in board level interconnect could salvage the future
> of conventional microprocessors for "supercomputing," but right
> now, the future sure looks like streaming processors to me, and
> not just because they remind me of the Cray 1.

Yawn! So go *do* it. The fact is that it would be there if there
was a market. No, likely not from IBM, at least until someone else
proved there was $billions to be made. IBM is all about $billions.

> Streaming processors a slam dunk? Apparently not. They're hard
> to
> program and inflexible. IBM is the builder of choice for them at
> the
> moment. Somebody else, though, will have to come up with the
> money.

Builder, perhaps. Architect/proponent/financier? I don't think
so. ...at least not the way this peon sees things. I've had many
wishes over the years, This doesn't even come close to my list of
"good ideas wasted on dumb management",

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Rupert Pigott wrote:

> Robert Myers wrote:


>
>> Clusters of very low-power chips, a la Blue Gene was not a dumb idea,
>> it just isn't bold enough--you still need those warehouses, a separate
>> power plant to provide power and cooling, and _somebody_ is paying for
>> the real estate, even if it doesn't show up in the price of the machine.
>
>
> BG significantly raises the bar on density and power consumption. The
> real issue with it is can folks make use of it effectively ? As far as
> the mechanicals go the papers say that BG/L is scalable from a single
> shelf to the full warehouse..
>
> In fact the things which stand out about BG/L for me is how lean it is,
> and how they've designed the thing from the ground up with MTBF and
> servicing in mind. A bunch of whiteboxes hooked up by some 3rd party
> interconnect just can't beat that.
>

I think we're agreed on that.

<snip>

> "Compared with today's fastest supercomputers, it will be six times
> faster, consume 1/15th the power per computation and be 10 times more
> compact than today's fastest supercomputers"
>

Those are compelling numbers, even by the harsh standard I use, which is
to take the fourth root of the claimed miracle as the real payoff
(because that's how much more hydro you can really do).

We need to be aiming at qualitative changes in how we do business,
though. With network on a chip and significant improvements in
board-level packaging, maybe we can get there with conventional
microprocessors in a Blue Gene architecture--but unless there is some
miracle I don't know about in the offing, we're going to need those
improvements and more, especially since, if scaling really hasn't fallen
apart at 90nm, nobody is saying so.

By comparison, we can do teraflop on a chip _now_ with streaming
technology. That's really hard to ignore, and we do need those
teraflops, and more.

RM
 

TRENDING THREADS