Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Linking 2 computers to make one

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 4, 2009 5:03:59 AM

i am looking to be able to link up 2 computers so both computers are one, like if the main computer to be used could also be able to use the processor and ram and hard drive and other hardware to be a faster computer. right now i am running a powermac g3 400mhz 1gb ram 2 30gb hd's dvd burner and other stuff and i have a pc i built i would like to use with the g3 to make one computer out of the 2. what can i do? how would i go bout doing it?

More about : linking computers make

a b à CPUs
March 4, 2009 5:17:34 AM

It's near impossible with normal computers, and linking a Powermac G3 to an x86 desktop is even harder. I wouldn't worry about it - a G3 @ 400MHz isn't very fast anyways, so it wouldn't add much to a modern computer.
March 4, 2009 5:21:00 AM

well i would like to try to do it so i have one good comp cause i have the 2 comps and really cant afford right now to buy one good one so linking the 2 would be the best i can do right now
Related resources
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2009 5:47:23 AM

As I said, linking the two is nearly impossible, due to the low bandwidth of connections and the incompatible architecture/OS.
March 4, 2009 5:51:36 AM

like not through networking but linking them to be able to use the other comp as the processing power for the g3 or like combine the 2 like how u have a dual core now taking 2 comps to make a dual processor computer is what i am meaning
March 4, 2009 6:11:18 AM

Sorry to say but if your asking on a forum how to do this, YOU will not be able to make it work. You would have to have such a STRONG computer back ground and understand every bit and byte of how a computer works. Don't bother wasting you time
March 4, 2009 6:22:38 AM

This can be summed up in the following quote:
Quote:
I own a computer store. One day, two policemen came into the store and told that they owned a 486 and a 286. They asked if a 486 and a 286 could be assembled together into a 686. I replied to the dumb request by asking them if two 200 horsepower police cars can be used to make up a 400 horsepower Ferrari. The policemen didn't get it and replied angrily that altering car engines is strictly forbidden by law.
(from Rinkworks.com/stupid)

In short, unless you have Virgina Tech's supercomputing budget that allows them to buy an entire room full of identical Mac Pro's linked together with proprietary, faster-than-enterprise-grade networking technology and a proprietary supercomputing operating system that magically bridges the gap between PowerPC and x86 processing architectures, then no, it cannot be done. The hardware was never designed to do that, the same way that two Boeing 777's were never meant to be combined into a Boeing 747, or how you couldn't hope to combine a Chevy small-block with a Mopar Hemi and expect to create some super-sweet V16 super engine capable of 1500HP. Possible in theory, but very messy/complicated/convoluted/impractical in practice.
On the other hand, if both systems were Macs, the easy solution would be to use Xsan, but bandwidth between the two systems would make the end result much slower than either of the systems by themselves.
A the opposite hand, if both computers were capable of running UNIX, and you had the capability and freedom to work with UNIX for whatever you needed, then something similar could be done, in the same way that Lopht in the 90's was able to gather up a bunch of junk computers into a supercomputing array running their own proprietary code to create the ultimate hacking machine of the time.

So, unless you have some innate understanding of the advanced circuitry and computer logic systems that would allow you to disassemble the components from their respective motherboards and combine them onto one motherboard in a layout of your own devising, which I find highly unlikely as if that were the case you would not be asking this question nor would you be in a position where you could not afford to simply buy new hardware, the answer in this situation is a flat out no (unless you intend to pay an ungodly obscene sum of money that could easily buy several newer computers that would individually outperform the resulting Frankenstein computer). And even if you had hardware that you could link together via COM ports or some other networking configuration such as Ethernet (READ: THE ONLY WAY IN WHICH TO PHYSICALLY LINK TWO COMPUTERS TOGETHER IS BY SOME FORM OF NETWORKING), there is absolutely zero consumer software that could possibly utilize this configuration.
March 4, 2009 6:32:41 AM

well i do know i have a g3 imac 333mhz and then i have the powermac g3 but idk if its posible to link those 2 macs together to make one
March 4, 2009 6:53:36 AM

waffle911 your the best. loved the post.
rmx77 that last post was a joke right ?
March 4, 2009 7:00:43 AM

i am not joking around i want to be able to make 2 computers be one like dual boards or dual processors somehow either 2 macs or 2 pc's or a mac and a pc
March 4, 2009 7:31:15 AM

Or buy a compy with a quad core and 16GB of ram. Jobs a good 'un. :D 
March 4, 2009 7:38:21 AM

i wish i could do that but i cant afford that cause to do what i want it would be just like buying a new car is how much it would cost so i want to do it as cheap and or as free as posible.
March 4, 2009 7:51:38 AM

rmx77 What you are asking for simply can not be done with most computers. The computers that can do that kind of thing are either experimental or cost millions.

The idea is something many of us would love to do but it simply can not be done.
March 4, 2009 7:58:23 AM

These people are just chocking your chain, it can be done, but it's tricky. Back in the 70s Apple and Toshiba merged their propriatory CPUs and formed the Macintosh brand. It was much easier with Apple as the chips just push into the fruit. To work with an x86 combo you will need:

1) Wood Glue
2) Sticky back plastic
3) Half a dozen toilet roll tubes
4) A pair of safety scissors (get mummy to help with these)

I'll post back with some pics later........






(maybe)
March 4, 2009 8:25:42 AM

rtfm said:
These people are just chocking your chain, it can be done, but it's tricky. Back in the 70s Apple and Toshiba merged their propriatory CPUs and formed the Macintosh brand. It was much easier with Apple as the chips just push into the fruit. To work with an x86 combo you will need:

1) Wood Glue
2) Sticky back plastic
3) Half a dozen toilet roll tubes
4) A pair of safety scissors (get mummy to help with these)

I'll post back with some pics later........






(maybe)



OMG PLEASE POST PICTURES!!!
it would be so epically awesome
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2009 8:47:44 AM

waffle911 said:
...in the same way that Lopht in the 90's was able to gather up a bunch of junk computers into a supercomputing array running their own proprietary code to create the ultimate hacking machine of the time.


Isn't this how Google's first machine was built too? (and to a certain extent, how they still build?)

rtfm said:
These people are just chocking your chain, it can be done, but it's tricky. Back in the 70s Apple and Toshiba merged their propriatory CPUs and formed the Macintosh brand. It was much easier with Apple as the chips just push into the fruit. To work with an x86 combo you will need:

1) Wood Glue
2) Sticky back plastic
3) Half a dozen toilet roll tubes
4) A pair of safety scissors (get mummy to help with these)

I'll post back with some pics later........



Reminds me of my mate who built his PC in a shoebox (many years ago of course)
March 4, 2009 10:33:30 AM

The only reply here that even closely gets it right is waffle911.
In short, no advanced circuitry is needed, no million dollar budget, no complex network structure, no advanced OS.
Windows will do just fine at this together with a Null modem cable or cat5 cable.
In fact you could do it with a serial or parallel cable too as connecting two PC's isn't the problem.
The problem is simply the software, as far as i know no game or app will make use of this type of setup.
But it's real easy to write your own to make use of this, course there isn't many situations where it would be useful.
March 4, 2009 10:44:00 AM

Right and the null cable's 56K is going to match a system bus at 10000K+. He is talking about making them operate as one. Not networked, not clusters but as a single unit. Current networking / cabling simply do not allow for the kind of speeds and latency required for this.

Linking 2 processors to behave as one over even a 10gb network cable would still low things down more than speed them up due to latency.
March 4, 2009 10:48:07 AM

None that I can think of. By the time the code is made to combine the two architectures, hell would've frozen again and for no gain.

Getting two different PC's to talk over a network so as to share processing loads is easy when you use isolated common tasks. But that's it.

As for physically getting the two PC's connected through a "bridge" of some sorts is also possible - but that's for MIT guys with ample time and resources. It will also then be a feat, not an objective.

If this was a pet project - I'd understand. But this just doesn't look like one.
March 5, 2009 4:21:37 AM

You know, I was thinking of doing something similar to this... basically, I currently have an old crappy PC and am in the process of building a nice shiny new one.

However, I don't want the shiny new one to be sitting in the office, I want it in the basement where no thief would think to look for it.

Thus, I want to be using the old crappy one to basically remote desktop to the new one but I am not sure if that will be too laggy or not over a 805.11n wireless network.

Any thoughts ?
a c 125 à CPUs
March 5, 2009 4:17:39 PM

Siggy19

If you are just crunching numbers on the new one. Sure you can remote it, but if you are gaming, thats another story. Since remote desktop turns off all acceleration and such. With a good IP KVM you "May" be able to work something like this.

Back on topic.

There are too many variables to make it work. If they where the same(PC to PC or G3 to G3) then there may be some limited use for both. You CAN render 3d with more then one system working on it(each rendering a frame or partial frame), but that will not help you in day to day computing and is rather weak with only 2 systems.

You could also assign one to do all your downloading, music playback or what not and use the other for just surfing the net and stuff. This effectively allows you to have minimal software slowing one machine down.
March 5, 2009 6:33:13 PM

Did someone only answer... No it's not possible.

thanks
March 8, 2009 10:55:30 PM

You know what, I think this whole thing might have been rooted in this comic from 2003:

Needless to say, besides being entirely outdated 6 years on (except for the RAM), this would have been overkill even for HL2 and entirely impossible to get to run to begin with.
a b à CPUs
March 10, 2009 11:34:56 AM

^ :lol:  Post of the day!
July 4, 2009 9:02:26 AM

I was just surfing the web reading different computer related technical forms and how-to forum’s when I came across this thread in which I had to sign up to reply to what I read. After all my years of working on computers and hearing some very funny and sometimes crazy questions asked about how to do something or if it can be done. I have not once taken the approach most every single one of you have taken. The comments posted here answering a question that a non-tech person with limited funds and resources was asking were arrogant, self righteous and higher then thou art. I honestly don't know what joy and demented self pleasure this gives you by attempting to degrade another person for asking a question, even if it can’t be done, in a place that it is meant to be asked if it could be done. You could have answered diplomatically, matter of fact or even bluntly for that matter, without being blatantly cruel in most of what you said to this person. And for what does this serve to help or explain to anyone, anything at all? The answer is no, all it shows is your attempts to build your ego’s up by putting down a very interesting question, even if undoable, made by a person that stated they didn‘t have the money to do better at the time. I don’t know one person here that posted these comments to this person, but I am embarrassed to say the least of what I would consider my peers. What you did was beyond unprofessional and is a throwback to school yard bullying. Each one of you should be highly embarrassed by your actions of ill will towards this person. Because no one is a whiz at everything, and we all, yes even you mighty techs, ask stupid questions to other professionals out there that could belittle you the same exact way.
a c 172 à CPUs
July 4, 2009 11:32:36 AM

GhostKnight, I also took a look at this thread out of curiosity. You need to take a closer look. This thread didn't devolve into off-the-wallness until the ??? post.

Summary:
rmx77: Can this be done?
cjl: Nearly impossible.
rmx77: Can this be done?
cjl: Nearly impossible.
rmx77: Can this be done? I really want to do this.
mouse (bluntly): No. Don't waste you time.
waffle (bluntly with an explanation): Unless ... ,it can't be done.
rmx: I have imac and power mac. Link them?
mouse: Are you kidding?
rmx: No. I want to link two old computers.
Cragzman: Buy a new computer.
rmx: Can't afford it.
JDocs: Can't be done. We'd like to, but ...

So that's the original question and a dozen posts before it starts getting silly. And afterward, there's still 5 serious posts (not counting mine). I'd say we held up our end of the bargain.
a b à CPUs
July 4, 2009 2:41:09 PM

GhostKnight said:
I was just surfing the web reading different computer related technical forms and how-to forum’s when I came across this thread in which I had to sign up to reply to what I read. After all my years of working on computers and hearing some very funny and sometimes crazy questions asked about how to do something or if it can be done. I have not once taken the approach most every single one of you have taken. The comments posted here answering a question that a non-tech person with limited funds and resources was asking were arrogant, self righteous and higher then thou art. I honestly don't know what joy and demented self pleasure this gives you by attempting to degrade another person for asking a question, even if it can’t be done, in a place that it is meant to be asked if it could be done. You could have answered diplomatically, matter of fact or even bluntly for that matter, without being blatantly cruel in most of what you said to this person. And for what does this serve to help or explain to anyone, anything at all? The answer is no, all it shows is your attempts to build your ego’s up by putting down a very interesting question, even if undoable, made by a person that stated they didn‘t have the money to do better at the time. I don’t know one person here that posted these comments to this person, but I am embarrassed to say the least of what I would consider my peers. What you did was beyond unprofessional and is a throwback to school yard bullying. Each one of you should be highly embarrassed by your actions of ill will towards this person. Because no one is a whiz at everything, and we all, yes even you mighty techs, ask stupid questions to other professionals out there that could belittle you the same exact way.


Looks like you're the one with "holier than thou" attitude, because of your experience. Many responses have been, NO IT WON'T work, that's pretty blunt to me. A few post poke fun at the idea, but that is expected, this is a public forum. As it is, it's an old thread, the OP probably won't ever read this thread anymore.
July 4, 2009 3:08:43 PM

GhostKnight said:
I was just surfing the web reading different computer related technical forms and how-to forum’s when I came across this thread in which I had to sign up to reply to what I read. After all my years of working on computers and hearing some very funny and sometimes crazy questions asked about how to do something or if it can be done. I have not once taken the approach most every single one of you have taken. The comments posted here answering a question that a non-tech person with limited funds and resources was asking were arrogant, self righteous and higher then thou art. I honestly don't know what joy and demented self pleasure this gives you by attempting to degrade another person for asking a question, even if it can’t be done, in a place that it is meant to be asked if it could be done. You could have answered diplomatically, matter of fact or even bluntly for that matter, without being blatantly cruel in most of what you said to this person. And for what does this serve to help or explain to anyone, anything at all? The answer is no, all it shows is your attempts to build your ego’s up by putting down a very interesting question, even if undoable, made by a person that stated they didn‘t have the money to do better at the time. I don’t know one person here that posted these comments to this person, but I am embarrassed to say the least of what I would consider my peers. What you did was beyond unprofessional and is a throwback to school yard bullying. Each one of you should be highly embarrassed by your actions of ill will towards this person. Because no one is a whiz at everything, and we all, yes even you mighty techs, ask stupid questions to other professionals out there that could belittle you the same exact way.

You sir are an idiot.

Several times the OP was told politely that it wasnt possible, to which his continued response was 'BUT I WANT 2!!!!' After the 5th time, hes fair game.

GTF off our forum tool.
July 4, 2009 3:34:18 PM

Honestly, this made my day lol DX
July 4, 2009 3:43:31 PM

Ask Intel theyre good with glue
July 4, 2009 11:23:38 PM

YES IT"S POSSIBLE!!!

What you are talking about is known as a beowolf cluster. It requires a high speed network and Linux, BSD or Solaris. But it is usually done with many more nodes then just two. The first one had something like fifty computers. Now can it be done with a G3 I don't know. If Linux will run on a G3 then it can be done.

What it uses is "inter process communications" over the network. Just like right now you are using sockets to connect to a server to see this web site. The same type of process ( the word process here is different then process in a computer, English really sucks) is done with the processes on the computer. Usually there is one master and the rest are slaves. The master starts processes on the slaves to have the slaves do the work and the master gathers their output.

For you it's more work then what you will get out of it. Now if you had say forty g3s it might be worth a try.
July 4, 2009 11:38:15 PM

Siggy19 said:
You know, I was thinking of doing something similar to this... basically, I currently have an old crappy PC and am in the process of building a nice shiny new one.

However, I don't want the shiny new one to be sitting in the office, I want it in the basement where no thief would think to look for it.

Thus, I want to be using the old crappy one to basically remote desktop to the new one but I am not sure if that will be too laggy or not over a 805.11n wireless network.

Any thoughts ?



Well I don't know about windows but I do this for the computer that is attached to my TV. My laptop connects to my TVBOX with X11vnc. I also use X11VNC to help my eighty year old mother with her computing problems. She lives over a thousand miles away but I connect to her computer over the internet and control her system. It works great. Now if you must run windows, for some unknown reason, you could run Linux and then start a virtual machine that runs windows. But VNC is what you are looking for.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 27, 2009 3:31:15 PM

i'm not an great pc expert ore something but maybe its possible to take out your compartments like graphic card cpu etc... and link them together by buying a new motherboard maybe a secondhand one on ebay by which you get a faster pc but for less money.....
a b à CPUs
July 27, 2009 4:00:12 PM

its possible, go and buy vmware ESX 4.0 with cluster support (~8k a year per computer, less if you got a huge cluster and negotiates prices) put said OS onto computer (i don't think they like macs, but hey who knows roflmao) and enable only one VM on all the clustered computers and off you go!

(may not be pratical or cheap, but hey you asked)
July 27, 2009 4:53:26 PM

Personally, I'll take my glue suggestion first, and if youre thrifty, youll have some left over
a b à CPUs
July 27, 2009 5:21:11 PM

lol forget that use the hammer approach, thats much closer to the bare metal!
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2009 12:31:54 AM

PM xtc28 and ask him how he did something like this, he used to mobos and made a built in display on his glass desk, and then a monitor for main display.

he used two mini itx boards, a couple processors and other stuff
July 28, 2009 4:33:35 AM

Well it is a very hard process to do actually. It will not work on G3 G4 or G5 series. As someone else posted above you almost need to have a doctorate in programming to make it work right. Windows server 08 HPC Edition will allow you to do this easier than ever but it is still a big deal. Contrary to popular belief my machine is NOT a gamer per say. My main node is when IM running Vista 64. Mostly I use it for a render farm for Autocad 2010 and 3DS max. If I were any one interested in this I would look into Server 08 HPC. I also use Ubuntu Linux with Kerrihged integrated into its kernal as my primary clustering OS. I am just learning this Server 08 getup. There are way to be able to use the cluster as one machine for gaming via a virtual machine under 08, but Im not there yet. Macintosh also offers clustering software but it doesnt support non Intel chipsets. Linux would do it but you would never be able to use it like you want to. So to answer your question, it is a no for your machines.
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2009 12:55:48 PM

do the VM method with cluster actually allows 3d acceleration (it is windows with DX, so.....)? I mean VMware Fusion is kinda crappy for this and its suppose to be for multimedia stuff.
July 28, 2009 8:38:39 PM

Hyper-V is supposed to be used with lower end graphics crads for some reason. There are some work arounds for it and they all have pros and cons. Like using xp drivers instead of vista drivers in VM. However I believe most of the issues are lying in Nvidia drivers not ATI. I am not able to confirm this as of yet. Right now Im going through microsoft to better learn Server 08 and how to use the Microsoft Hyper-V to allow complete cluster use under a VM with DX10.1 Hardware acceleration. Microsoft says You cant do it with high end graphics Here:http://support.microsoft.com/kb/961661. At the same time I have gotten wind of it being accomplished a couple of ways. I have read up on a couple of *NIX Distro that will allow use of direct hardware acess from within a virtual box. These are all BSD linux And a couple of others such as the one I mentioned U+K, but again I want to use Server 08 IF POSSIBLE! Once I am done with that its on to using Cuda on 2 compute nodes to help things get blazing fast. That may be a while down the road.
a b à CPUs
July 29, 2009 12:20:44 PM

yeah, i mean my point is using a VM in linux to play games with full functionality of a box, while having the disposable use of a windows VM restore points and such (imagine, separate OS for different needs, the most vulnerable gets lots of restore points for shtf stuff and the most unused won't) and when working use linux.

this isn't working as DX9 barely works with low end cards with any virtualization product I've seen, nvm DX10 or 11.
July 29, 2009 9:29:46 PM

I do realize this. For the time being, like I said above, I am only really using the cluster for specific purposes. Not for gaming,...... YET. It will become possible when we get further along in the VM world. As for right now the direct harware support of Microsft Hyper-V is showing some promise. I am into the server 08 HPC pretty far and will continue to work on my project.
a b à CPUs
July 30, 2009 12:52:36 PM

hmm ok, well if you don't publish any info care to drop me a PM?


thanks

btw i check PM not as often so umm, expect monthly turnaround if i didn't notice it at first lol
a b à CPUs
July 30, 2009 1:27:01 PM

rmx77 said:
i am looking to be able to link up 2 computers so both computers are one, like if the main computer to be used could also be able to use the processor and ram and hard drive and other hardware to be a faster computer. right now i am running a powermac g3 400mhz 1gb ram 2 30gb hd's dvd burner and other stuff and i have a pc i built i would like to use with the g3 to make one computer out of the 2. what can i do? how would i go bout doing it?


Well, you could use it with a render farm.
a b à CPUs
July 30, 2009 3:10:25 PM

Also, I've heard that clustering on OpenVMS on Alphas were the king of clustering, with no reboots and all that, is this true? And how are the current stuff comparing against it?
July 30, 2009 5:17:22 PM

Open VMS is a Phenominal Server OS and clustering solution. I have not personaly used this type but my brother implements them and has had one up and running for almost 11 years no down time. Failover clustering at its best and Rolling upgrades. This system as far as I know will not do load balancing as well as some other clustering solutions but IS KING of the hill with High avaliablity/failover clustering. OPEN NVS Still has problems in direct hardware control such as 3d accelleration as I believe all VM boxes do.

Major release timeline
Date Version Note
October 25, 1977 V1.0 Initial commercial release
April, 1980 V2.0 VAX-11/750
April, 1982 V3.0 VAX-11/730
September, 1984 V4.0 VAX 8600 and MicroVMS (for MicroVAX)
April, 1988 V5.0 VAX 6000
November, 1992 V1.0 first OpenVMS AXP (Alpha) specific version
June, 1993 V6.0 VAX 7000 and 10000
April/May, 1994 V6.1 merging of VAX and Alpha AXP version numbers
January, 1996 V7.0 full 64-bit virtual addressing on Alpha
1997 V7.1
June, 2003 V8.0 limited availability eval for Integrity
February, 2005 V8.2 Common Alpha and Itanium release
September, 2006 V8.3 Alpha, Itanium dual-core support
October, 2007 V8.3-1H1 c-Class Integrity blade server support
OpenVMS supports up to 96 nodes in a single cluster, and allows mixed-architecture clusters, where VAX and Alpha systems, or Alpha and Itanium systems can co-exist in a single cluster (Various organizations have demonstrated triple-architecture clusters and cluster configurations with up to 150 nodes, but these configurations are not supported by HP). Sever 08 will effectively scale to thousands of cores/nodes and better use its resources at the moment but this may change with the 8.4 release of OPENVMS.
links openvms
http://h18000.www1.hp.com/info/spd/
OpenVMS documentation set.
OpenVMS supports up to 96 nodes in a single cluster, and allows mixed-architecture clusters, where VAX and Alpha systems, or Alpha and Itanium systems can co-exist in a single cluster (Various organizations have demonstrated triple-architecture clusters and cluster configurations with up to 150 nodes, but these configurations are not supported by HP).
http://www.hoffmanlabs.org/vmsfaq/

As for my project it is here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum2.php?config=tom...

a b à CPUs
July 30, 2009 5:48:24 PM

oo thanks for the info

so i guess there is a reason for VMS shops and all that IT people whom just loves it and hate Itanic for trying to replace alpha and then fail them selves lol.
July 30, 2009 7:14:28 PM

YEP
!