PDA

View Full Version : Virginia Tech PowerMac G5 to Xserve G5 Upgrade


MacRumors
Jan 27, 2004, 12:49 AM
Virginia Tech officially announced (http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040126/tech_virginiatech_apple_1.html) that they will be migrating their G5 Supercomputer from PowerMac G5s to Xserves.

According to the article, the Xserve G5s will reduce power consumption, heat production and decrease the system size by a factor of three. The pricing of the upgrade is still being determined, and according to Srinidhi Varadarajan, they are working on getting "very good homes" for the PowerMac G5s which will be replaced.

A Page 2 MacRumors report (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/01/20040112042242.shtml) first mentioned the Xserve upgrade, with subsequent confirmation (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/01/20040115170709.shtml) from ThinkSecret.

MoparShaha
Jan 27, 2004, 12:51 AM
Very cool.

It's like a low-fat BigMac!

--Sorry, I couldn't help myself :p

Sabenth
Jan 27, 2004, 12:55 AM
Very nice i have to say i have room for a spare g5 if they want to chuck one my way lol :)

Squire
Jan 27, 2004, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by Macrumors
... according to Srinidhi Varadarajan, they are working on getting "very good homes" for the PowerMac G5s which will be replaced.

I wonder if that means they'll be having a big Virginia Tech garage sale or that the PowerMacs will be going to other departments. That would be kind of cool owning one of them- saying that you had part of the third fastest computer in the world.

Squire

apelet
Jan 27, 2004, 12:58 AM
I have a perfect place for one (or a few) of their used G5s. I guarantee it will be put toward good use in an educational setting (ie my school work). I promise to put it gently to sleep every night, say hello to it every morning, and make sure it gets everything it needs.

Gimme!

Krizoitz
Jan 27, 2004, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by Squire
I wonder if that means they'll be having a big Virginia Tech garage sale or that the PowerMacs will be going to other departments. That would be kind of cool owning one of them- saying that you had part of the third fastest computer in the world.

Squire

I want one, and heck I'll come by a lab flunky for them if they want, I'm gonna need a job soon enough...

Sol
Jan 27, 2004, 12:59 AM
The G5 XServes feature dual ethernet interfaces. Since the G5 PowerMacs in VA Tech's Big Mac utilise PCI ethernet cards I wonder if those cards will be transfered to the XServes or if they are needed at all.

sethypoo
Jan 27, 2004, 01:03 AM
(picks up phone, calls Virginia Tech, asks favor)

stoid
Jan 27, 2004, 01:06 AM
Is it possible that this change could increase performance?

It seems that if the components are smaller and closer together, that the overall performance might get a bit closer to it's theoretical maximum speed.

Dippo
Jan 27, 2004, 01:11 AM
Dear Virginia Tech,

Could you please send me one of those PowerMacs?
I promise to give it a really good home

:)

sith33
Jan 27, 2004, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by Sol
The G5 XServes feature dual ethernet interfaces. Since the G5 PowerMacs in VA Tech's Big Mac utilise PCI ethernet cards I wonder if those cards will be transfered to the XServes or if they are needed at all.

VAtech is using infiniband. It's faster/lower latency than ethernet. Likely they'll just move the cards over.

But why not keep 2/3's of the towers, replace 1/3 with xServe G5's and end up with like 1700 boxen. Mmm.

nagromme
Jan 27, 2004, 01:16 AM
Cool--now Apple has a big testbed proving TWO products, first the towers and now the servers... and VT has room to grow Big Mac much faster later (mixing in much faster Macs than now exist) in the same racks :)

And really, Xserve clusters are the solution other organizations need to see in action. This is good for Apple and VT alike.

BTW if anyone still thinks the initial project was a waste... remember that VT had a deadline with big bucks riding on it. Xserves weren't available, and NOTHING but PowerMac G5s could give them the power they got for the price. They made a good move--and now they are making another one.

(I would have thought the upgrade was part of the original deal, but I see the price of the Xserves is still being negotiated.)

spaceballl
Jan 27, 2004, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by Macrumors

Srinidhi Varadarajan
Hey that's MY name!

redAPPLE
Jan 27, 2004, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by Sabenth
Very nice i have to say i have room for a spare g5 if they want to chuck one my way lol :)

wha? you got a room for a spare g5, too? ;)

virividox
Jan 27, 2004, 01:50 AM
wow i can provide a home too

mike czech
Jan 27, 2004, 01:55 AM
I'm just wondering why VT is deciding to upgrade now, when the G5 is scheduled for a 50% speed upgrade within the next 6-9 months. Won't this just be wasted $$$ in the long run? Sure it would be nice to cut the cooling costs for a few months, but when they upgrade to 3GHz XServe G5s they will have a much more ass-kicking Mac monster at their disposal.

Sol
Jan 27, 2004, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by sith33
VAtech is using infiniband. It's faster/lower latency than ethernet. Likely they'll just move the cards over.

But why not keep 2/3's of the towers, replace 1/3 with xServe G5's and end up with like 1700 boxen. Mmm.

I thought the cards used by VA Tech were a faster version of Ethernet but apparently they are not.
I stand corrected.

On your thought about keeping some PowerMacs, I say that it would be a waste. All those racks can be used to house even more G5 XServes than the intitial 1100 units. Before too long I expect this Big Mac to be even more capable than it is today.

Of course we have yet to see what if anything competing universities will do with Linux and Dell or HP hardware.

acj
Jan 27, 2004, 02:02 AM
isn't this a ridiculously short lifespan for a supercomputer, and a ridiculously small upgrade? I suppose the power savings will shortly pay for the (small?) cost of upgrade.

depolitic
Jan 27, 2004, 02:20 AM
I can just see the Wintel crowed pointing to how the Big Mac was a waste of time and more baseless claims. Just wait and see, claims that Virginia Tech made a mistake, Apple sucks, Apple lied, Windows rules, and they monkey's will lap it up.

So this move worries me a little. As for what happens to old G5 towers the I heard that Apple had agreed long ago to trade in the G5 Tower for XServes.

five04
Jan 27, 2004, 02:54 AM
i'm thinking they'll keep a good number of them to use around campus. if they sold them, they'd have to be marked down a LOT before i'd buy one. keep in mind, they've been running 24/7 since the end of last summer. even if it is an apple, that shortens the life of the parts. i also wonder how much the electricity costs to power and cool them. the xserve will definitly help that.

ZildjianKX
Jan 27, 2004, 02:58 AM
Originally posted by acj
isn't this a ridiculously short lifespan for a supercomputer, and a ridiculously small upgrade? I suppose the power savings will shortly pay for the (small?) cost of upgrade.

That's what I think too.

I know they mentioned how much power they will save and how much space... but the Xserves might be noisier :p (from what I've heard)

GigaWire
Jan 27, 2004, 03:25 AM
It's so easy to spend money when it isn't yours...

Anyway, i hope that the xServe form factor and the proven Super-success of the platform will push someone to go after #1. Oh and the damn good pricing.

MacRAND
Jan 27, 2004, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by mike czech
I'm just wondering why VT is deciding to upgrade now, when the G5 is scheduled for a 50% speed upgrade within the next 6-9 months. Notice that the new DP Xserves are exactly the same speed as the dual processor 2GHz G5s, only using the new, smaller chip.
I do not know if it is absolutely true, but I have heard (can't remember where or when) that any replacement of a G5 within the cluster must be a Dual running at the SAME SPEED as the unit being replaced. Therefore, as the Xserves migrate, say 48 at a time, and replace 48 G5s, is this the reason for the 2.0 speed and not a higher clock speed?

I remember in September 2003 asking if they could add 100 2.4GHz G5s when they came out, then 100 3.0GHz, but was told that all the computers had to be the same speed and duals.

With that limitation, VT has no incentive to wait for faster chips.
And, remember, the SuperComputer certification happens every 6 months, not just once a year.

So now, has VT's goal changed?

HP and Dell are not going to sit around and do nothing, they have probably been feverishly looking to partner with some other Computer Tech College willing to invest in their own cluster. Note that even if some gave a college 1,100 free computers, the school was still have to make a substantial investment in providing a unique facility for the cluster.

Apple has to have made an absolute killing in essentially FREE advertising and increased product recognition, especially among corporate, government, and higher education institutions. Not to mention VT has impressed all us onesie twosie Mac buyers too.

Every one of us wants to provide a "good home" for a piece of the Big Mac cluster.
:D

edesignuk
Jan 27, 2004, 03:54 AM
I have a very good home *hint, hint*

crenz
Jan 27, 2004, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by GigaWire
Anyway, i hope that the xServe form factor and the proven Super-success of the platform will push someone to go after #1. Oh and the damn good pricing.

Unlikely. Depending on the application, vector computers (such as the current #1) are much, much faster compared to clusters than just the factor 3.5 or so that is currently separating #1 from #3.

ChrisH3677
Jan 27, 2004, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by acj
isn't this a ridiculously short lifespan for a supercomputer, and a ridiculously small upgrade? I suppose the power savings will shortly pay for the (small?) cost of upgrade.

Maybe, but look at the free advertising VT has got out of this? The whole tertiary computer world knows that VT has the fastest supercomputer. And now when they change to Xserves, they get a second round of free advertising.

And how many computer geeks and boffins have and will trek to VT for a look?

And wouldn't you want to work at or attend VT with the reputation they now have from this?

This has and will put VT in front of people for over a year! That's a good return on investment! :)

hvfsl
Jan 27, 2004, 05:04 AM
If I was them, I would have waited for the next Xserve update, probably in September. But I expect the savings on the electricity bill will make it worth it. The PowerMac G5s will be used in the University by students and teachers, I expect they have some old G3/4s that need replacing.

VicMacs
Jan 27, 2004, 05:22 AM
i'll sacrifice my room for one...

Henriok
Jan 27, 2004, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by GigaWire
Anyway, i hope that the xServe form factor and the proven Super-success of the platform will push someone to go after #1. Oh and the damn good pricing. Unlikely :) Next year IBM will bring the complete BlueGene/L super computer online. It will aim towards 350 TFLOPs, 35 times faster than VTs cluster.

craigiest
Jan 27, 2004, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by mike czech
I'm just wondering why VT is deciding to upgrade now, when the G5 is scheduled for a 50% speed upgrade within the next 6-9 months. Won't this just be wasted $$$ in the long run? Sure it would be nice to cut the cooling costs for a few months, but when they upgrade to 3GHz XServe G5s they will have a much more ass-kicking Mac monster at their disposal.

In 9 months the G5 will be 6-9 months away from another 50% speed upgrade.

It NEVER makes sense to buy a computer, because there will always be a faster, cheaper one if you wait just a little longer.

garybUK
Jan 27, 2004, 07:16 AM
Do you think that maybe another academic institution may be getting their current G5's ???? or they will be upgrading their network to a full mac suite or maybe going to the staff / students at discounts.

Maybe this system was a test bed, dont forgett they got the first shipment of G5's and a completely new architecture, this thing wont have had much real world experience and apple may have offered them a 'Proper' system if they wanted it, to run their projects on e.g. the Xserve systems.

Doesn't look good for apple marketing if a supercomputer is made up of their Desktop Machines and not their servers, what does that say of apple's servers, this has always been a weak point for apple, their servers have never been really upto scratch until the xserves came along.

Its like a company saying to HP/Compaq,, hmm no we wont use your Proliant ML Servers we'll use your EVO Desktops... doesn't happen.

All i can say is this is looking to be a promising future for Apple Servers, I hope they exploit this, who knows a 3u Mac Server next?? Just look at the flexibility this one has offered, and of course its all thanks to the w

edesignuk
Jan 27, 2004, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by Henriok
It will aim towards 350 TFLOPs, 35 times faster than VTs cluster.
http://upload.edesignuk.net/uploaded_data/smilies/smilie_drool.gif But will it play Solitaire?

http://upload.edesignuk.net/uploaded_data/smilies/smilie_duhh.gif

Zech Marquis
Jan 27, 2004, 07:36 AM
this was probably planned along with the original purchase. And I bet there's alot of VA engineering students who will love to have those Power Mac G5s for their departments!

eazyway
Jan 27, 2004, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by mike czech
I'm just wondering why VT is deciding to upgrade now, when the G5 is scheduled for a 50% speed upgrade within the next 6-9 months. Won't this just be wasted $$$ in the long run? Sure it would be nice to cut the cooling costs for a few months, but when they upgrade to 3GHz XServe G5s they will have a much more ass-kicking Mac monster at their disposal.

The long term energy savings will be large and with the Xserves and time is an issue a 6-9 month wait is not an option. Plus now they can add faster Xserves to the cluster when they come out.

Mac-Xpert
Jan 27, 2004, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by depolitic
I can just see the Wintel crowed pointing to how the Big Mac was a waste of time and more baseless claims. Just wait and see, claims that Virginia Tech made a mistake, Apple sucks, Apple lied, Windows rules, and they monkey's will lap it up.

I don't think so. They would only be able to say such things if Virginia Tech would replace the G5’s by Opterons or Pentium Xeons. Since they only change one G5 system for another it makes no difference to their commitment to Apple.

Rincewind42
Jan 27, 2004, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by sith33
VAtech is using infiniband. It's faster/lower latency than ethernet. Likely they'll just move the cards over.

But why not keep 2/3's of the towers, replace 1/3 with xServe G5's and end up with like 1700 boxen. Mmm.

Because the cost of the upgrade will be paid for by the sale of the PowerMacs currently in the racks. Even if they only get 80% value that means the upgrade only costs about $660K whereas if they keep 2/3 of the towers then your looking at a cost of around $2.4M.

NavyIntel007
Jan 27, 2004, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by acj
isn't this a ridiculously short lifespan for a supercomputer, and a ridiculously small upgrade? I suppose the power savings will shortly pay for the (small?) cost of upgrade.

XServe uses ECC ram which is much more suited to supercomputing than the regular ram used in the G5 tower.

jholzner
Jan 27, 2004, 08:38 AM
So, after they upgrade to all Xserves is it still ranked #3??? I mean, isn't it really differnt supercomputer and not the one that was originally ranked #3. How is that going to work.

wPod
Jan 27, 2004, 08:41 AM
has anyone checked the VT web site to see if you can sign up to help provide a "very good home"?

splashman
Jan 27, 2004, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by mike czech
I'm just wondering why VT is deciding to upgrade now, when the G5 is scheduled for a 50% speed upgrade within the next 6-9 months. Won't this just be wasted $$$ in the long run? Sure it would be nice to cut the cooling costs for a few months, but when they upgrade to 3GHz XServe G5s they will have a much more ass-kicking Mac monster at their disposal.

One can always make that argument. It leads to nothing getting done.

Since VT is undoubtedly aware of the SJ's promise to deliver 3ghz desktops by June, they must have decided it was worth it. There just may be details involved that we aren't privy to. Imagine that.

splashman
Jan 27, 2004, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by jholzner
So, after they upgrade to all Xserves is it still ranked #3??? I mean, isn't it really differnt supercomputer and not the one that was originally ranked #3. How is that going to work.

Good question. I imagine they'll have to get it re-certified.

Shrike_Priest
Jan 27, 2004, 09:14 AM
I'd really like to see them adding a few more nodes in the proccess. it'd be kickass to steal the number 2 spot. Until IBM gets their behemoth online, that is :p

Omad0n
Jan 27, 2004, 09:19 AM
I have a friend who would love to purchase one of those babies. Guess it's off to the VT website for him.

Samurai980
Jan 27, 2004, 09:23 AM
Being the caring, generous, unselfish, and helpful type. I could *ahem* give my precious room to store a few G5s, maybe 1... or 2... or 1100... :D

But seriously. I wonder if Mr. Varadarajan and the others have considered donating them to the less fortunate mac users? All I have is an old iBook that barely works anymore, and Apple refuses to acknowledge the fact that the logic board is frail. I guess it was my fault for just going out and buying one when I finally saved up enough.

woe is me... and my lil ibook g3...

k2k koos
Jan 27, 2004, 09:31 AM
Imagine 1100 famous G5's on e-bay, start the bidding!;)

dho
Jan 27, 2004, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by VicMacs
i'll sacrifice my room for one...

But where will you put it?

dho
Jan 27, 2004, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by k2k koos
Imagine 1100 famous G5's on e-bay, start the bidding!;)
Unless they did some serios advertising, the will sell for very little.

Unless they are smart and release them at a trickleing pace as oposed to all at once.

wtmcgee
Jan 27, 2004, 09:34 AM
i wonder what you'd have to do or who you'd have to talk to in order to get your hands on one of those g5's for cheap?

adamfilip
Jan 27, 2004, 09:35 AM
ok well if they now are only using 1/3 of the space available.. but 2200 more Xerves and lets be #1

k2k koos
Jan 27, 2004, 09:36 AM
As for upgrading and not going any faster at VT,

I think the space saved will be wisely used, more space might mean they can house more machines in future, 2-3 times as many actually, now how would that compete in the supercomputer rankings?
Anyone care to guess?

k2k koos
Jan 27, 2004, 09:39 AM
DHO, wouldn't it be nice if they sold for little, at least for the bidders, I mean if I could get my hands on one of these G5's for 500 bucks or less, that would be sooo sweet...:)

AirUncleP
Jan 27, 2004, 09:48 AM
Dear VT,
I don't need a G5 tower. I repeat. I don't need a G5 tower. My 12" powerbook is just fine.

Thank you,
Underpaid Colorado Teacher

PS Never hurts to try. :)

splashman
Jan 27, 2004, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by AirUncleP
Dear VT,
I don't need a G5 tower. I repeat. I don't need a G5 tower. My 12" powerbook is just fine.

Thank you,
Underpaid Colorado Teacher

PS Never hurts to try. :)

Heh heh. Cute!

hokiethang
Jan 27, 2004, 10:23 AM
The most likely distribution of the old G5s will be to departments within the university. Virginia has budget laws and included in those is that all machinery sold by the university to private/commercial organizations must be 5 or more years old, and not needed/requested by any other department in the university. I have my doubts that they will send them back to apple as well because of the insane amount of paperwork that comes with state purchases.

Timothy
Jan 27, 2004, 10:34 AM
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this deal was significantly aided by Apple's desire to show off that many xserves. To that end, I am guessing that Apple gave them a sweet deal on the upgrade, but perhaps more important to this forum, my guess is that Apple will be taking the G5 towers back, doing a refurbish, and selling them through their retail chain and the Apple Online store.

Mr. Anderson
Jan 27, 2004, 10:46 AM
What I'm wondering at is if they'll end up getting more than 1100 - they have the room for it, why not?

Is there anyone who's a student at VTech here? The PowerMac's might go for sale on campus first.

D

hokiethang
Jan 27, 2004, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
What I'm wondering at is if they'll end up getting more than 1100 - they have the room for it, why not?

Is there anyone who's a student at VTech here? The PowerMac's might go for sale on campus first.

D

ahem... I am a student at VT, i doubt they will be sold because of the budget laws surrounding all state property (see my post a few posts up). Trust me, they wont be sold, and the likelyhood of them being sent back to apple is also fairly low (but definitely more likely than them being sold.)

mrsebastian
Jan 27, 2004, 11:09 AM
since the xserve is smaller and consumes less power, i wonder if they wouldn't try to make it an even better super computer? how sweet would that be? the worlds fastest super computer, built with off the shelf parts, at a much lower cost than anyone else, and it's a mac :D

TEG
Jan 27, 2004, 11:42 AM
I'd like to see VT fill all the current Racks with XServes, trippling the computing power with at least 3300 XServes, and one Power Mac G5 for the Administrator Station. That would be awesome. Now only if they were to use if for Folding and SETI, that would be awesome.

I heard about a few years ago, some engineers at work got in trouble for Running SETI@Home on our "big" machines, but they were completing work units in like an hour. I also heard rumors of them using one for a CS server, untill a Techie tracked down all the extra network traffic to their Laptops in their Cubes.

We should pool our money (like $30 each) and get Arn a G5 from VT. Just a thought.

TEG

Hemingray
Jan 27, 2004, 11:56 AM
Great news! I was hoping they'd do that. Let's hope Apple is kind enough to give them a good deal for being "early adopters". Just think how much more powerful the cluster could be filling up that same space with Xserves! :eek:

alandail
Jan 27, 2004, 12:09 PM
I'm sure a driving reason to upgrade now is ECC memory on the XServe. Also, it will be interesting to see if the space/power savings translates into expanding the number of nodes.

helmsc
Jan 27, 2004, 12:11 PM
I could use one of the G5s myself. My question is, "Hey VT need some help putting the XServes together like the PowerMacs?" :D

Snowy_River
Jan 27, 2004, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by hokiethang
The most likely distribution of the old G5s will be to departments within the university. Virginia has budget laws and included in those is that all machinery sold by the university to private/commercial organizations must be 5 or more years old, and not needed/requested by any other department in the university. I have my doubts that they will send them back to apple as well because of the insane amount of paperwork that comes with state purchases.

I think that an important question is where the money came from for the purchase. It may not, technically, be state money. Not if it came from a grant. And, therefore, it may not be governed by the budget laws. So, there are many more variables going on here than we know about, and I don't think the question is as straight forward as it might seem.

Snowy_River
Jan 27, 2004, 12:52 PM
Off topic, but, I'm curious about your sig.

Originally posted by TEG
Hillsboro, OR; Just west of the SEX capital of the US... Portland, Oregon.

What makes you say this?

If you are a liberal at 20, you're brainless, 40, moronic, 60, lonely, and 80, needy

I'd offer a word of caution. In these polarized times, a statement like this could easily be taken as very insulting.

army_guy
Jan 27, 2004, 12:55 PM
A cluster is a completly different thing to a Supercomputer (CRAY etc..) I agree clusters have been catching up but in terms of memory bandwidth, latency, io bandwidth, a cluster will never compare. That cluster may seem cheap at the begining but have it run for a few years and it eventually ends up costing more than a super computer from CRAY. More in terms of electricity, space, faultying/failing components etc...

IMO and others will agree its only cheap in the short term.

Iam not being critical of what virginia did but they have to understand that theres so much more to a supercomputer than pure theoretical flops.

alandail
Jan 27, 2004, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by army_guy
A cluster is a completly different thing to a Supercomputer (CRAY etc..) I agree clusters have been catching up but in terms of memory bandwidth, latency, io bandwidth, a cluster will never compare. That cluster may seem cheap at the begining but have it run for a few years and it eventually ends up costing more than a super computer from CRAY. More in terms of electricity, space, faultying/failing components etc...

Where does Cray have a machine that can generate 10 TFlops? Also, VA Tech said a single DP G5 node has as much compute power as a single Cray node.

army_guy
Jan 27, 2004, 01:09 PM
power yes, memory bandwidth, low latency, io bandwidth iam afraid not. And the memory handling is 100X better on the CRAY.

Iam attacking the cost factor here, it costs more to run a clustor than a supercomputer in the longterm.

suzerain
Jan 27, 2004, 01:23 PM
you know, basically this is like a limited edition set of machines.

i think they should take a small risk: hire a few engravers to engrave some commemorative slogan on the side of the machine under the apple logo (like "this machine was part of big mac")

then sell them on ebay. i'd not be surprised if many of them sold above value, just becaause mac fans (i.e. us), are such religious maniacs! :D

hell, they will get all the free publicity they need from the mac press (macrumors, maccentral, etc. and so on).

at the very least, it'd be an interesting experiment.

york2600
Jan 27, 2004, 01:28 PM
I just had to throw my own insight into this.


Power:
The PowerPC 970FX in the G5 Xserve uses 24.5W per processor compared to 51W for the original 970 used in the PowerMac G5. So we have a 26.5W saving per processor or 53W savings per machine. This is just for the processor so we can probably assume there is more of a power savings due to the lack of an optical drive and the lack of a beefy ATI Radeon card. So assuming they will still have 1100 machines that's a minimum savings of 58,300W or 58 kW. The cheapest power available in Virginia is from Dominion Virginia Power (http://www.state.va.us/scc/news/p2comp.htm) and for a large commercial customer it is 3.624 cents per kwh (kilowatt hour or 1 hour of 1000-watts). This comes out to $2.11 per hour saved. Assuming it runs 24/7 365 days a year (it won't exactly, but this is just an estimate) they will save $18,508 per year or the cost of 5 Xserve cluster nodes with 2-gigs of RAM (standard educational pricing and it's been said that VT got a deal on the RAM which added almost $1,000 per machine in my equation).

Cost:
A PowerMac G5 similar to what Virginia Tech bought is $3,644 while a cluster node G5 Xserve would be $3,444. Virginia Tech could care less if those PowerMacs had a SuperDrive, 56k modem, optical audio, and a Radeon. They can turn these G5 workstations around and sell them for a fairly high price. I'd bet that most likely Apple is trading the machines and doing the refurbishing themselves since they can easily move 1100 refurbished machines via the Apple Store online.

Maybe we want a faster cluster

It's been said that the original layout design allowed for the racks to be reconfigured assuming that Apple was going to release a 2U Xserve G5. All wiring is setup for this. I haven't heard that anywhere reliable, but it has been said. Assuming that VT can install the Xserves and have quite a bit of room left over. Perhaps with this room they can add addition machines. It wouldn't make sense to aim for the number 1 machine spot, but number 2 is quite possible. VT is currently pushing 17600 gigaflops or 16 gigaflops per machine. The number 2 spot is at 20480 gigaflops. 180 additional machines at VT would provide the additional speed necessary to match the number 2 (theoretically which doesn't really equal true speed as they don't scale perfectly).



Just a few thoughts.

griz
Jan 27, 2004, 01:40 PM
I'm voting for an engraved box that the fanatics will scoop up from Apple. Part of the 20th Anniversary Apple Celebration. Perhaps Giveaway? Steve has lots of tricks up his sleeve. Seems like the year of the apple promotions.

Mr. Anderson
Jan 27, 2004, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by griz
I'm voting for an engraved box that the fanatics will scoop up from Apple. Part of the 20th Anniversary Apple Celebration. Perhaps Giveaway? Steve has lots of tricks up his sleeve. Seems like the year of the apple promotions.

Ha, maybe with Pepsi!

Win part of the fastest Mac in the world - 1100 winners :D

That would be damn funny - and a good promotion - but I don't see Apple or VTech giving them away.

D

tortoise
Jan 27, 2004, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by alandail
Where does Cray have a machine that can generate 10 TFlops? Also, VA Tech said a single DP G5 node has as much compute power as a single Cray node.


This is akin to the "Photoshop benchmark". So ridiculously narrow that it has no connection to reality for most purposes. Several months ago I saw a benchmark one of the supercomputing lists between a Cray X1 compute node and a bunch of other high end commodity processors that someone did to make the point of why people still buy genuine supercomputers. For tight FP code (think LINPACK), the Cray wasn't all that spectacular (though still quite good considering it was running at 800MHz).

But when they ran large-scale scientific supercomputing codes that don't run tight FP loops that fit in cache (i.e. they exercised the memory), the single Cray compute node slaughtered the high-end commodity processors. We are talking a 10x difference in real performance. The reason? Real supercomputers like Cray have memory performance that we can only dream of even on the fastest commodity processors like the Opteron or PPC970. For supercomputing applications that can use it (and the majority actually do), there is a market for Crays because they can do things quickly that would be very slow on a G5 cluster.

ObTrivia: The memory and I/O architecture on the Opteron is not AMD original. AMD bought the design for the next-generation Cray system and then cut it down a little bit to make it practical for small commodity systems. It is one of the reasons the memory is so bloody fast on the Opteron -- it is a subsystem originally designed for Cray.

shamino
Jan 27, 2004, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by acj
isn't this a ridiculously short lifespan for a supercomputer, and a ridiculously small upgrade? I suppose the power savings will shortly pay for the (small?) cost of upgrade.
If it was a dedicated supercomputer (like a Cray, for instance), you'd be right. Such a device wouldn't have much resale value, except to other research groups with a huge budget.

But this supercomputer is a cluster of off-the-shelf Macs. This means the 1100 units can be sold off individually, and it is much easier to find 1100 buyers that each want a signle G5 tower than it would be to find a single buyer to take the whole cluster.

tiktokfx
Jan 27, 2004, 03:27 PM
True supercomputers are superior to clusters in some aspects.

Clusters are superior to true supercomputers in some aspects.

Making comments about the suitability of one or the other when you don't know a company/institution's use of it is just plain silly.

Back when I was in high school, we had a nice ETA. A building leak fried the fiber optic interconnects. For significantly less than the price of repairing it, we built a cluster that performed better for the tasks that we used it for.

God forbid people ever think that people who spend millions of dollars may have considered their options beforehand.

alamar
Jan 27, 2004, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
Off topic, but, I'm curious about your sig.



What makes you say this?



I'd offer a word of caution. In these polarized times, a statement like this could easily be taken as very insulting.

Portland has the most strip clubs in the US. (Per Captia)

TechHistorian
Jan 27, 2004, 03:37 PM
Doesn't matter where the money came from, the G5s are university (and thus state) property. They'll end up in other departments on campus, or replace some of the boxes at the Math Emporium, or fill out some computer labs. I'm positive they all have the exact same VT Inventory sticker (with a different #) thats on the eMac I'm typing this on.

merges
Jan 27, 2004, 03:57 PM
I think that possibly the best thing about this upgrade, assuming VT keeps the G5 towers and redistributes them throughout the schoool, is that there will likely be a huge number of people exposed to (and perhaps working primarily on) Macs.

The potential positive benefits to Apple, in terms of mindshare, and perhaps even sales, etc., are huge, if the 1100 towers end up becoming a "regular" part of life at VT.

Snowy_River
Jan 27, 2004, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by alamar
Portland has the most strip clubs in the US. (Per Captia)

Interesting. I didn't know that.

mclosers
Jan 27, 2004, 04:07 PM
In Case you were not aware we already have way over 1100 macs on campus. We have a building called the math emporium with over 500 (i think around 800) flatpanel iMacs http://www.emporium.vt.edu/emporium/VisitorsWebsite/VisitorsMain.html we also have the New Media Center with a few dozen editing bays for Video and audio editing http://www.nmc.vt.edu/ the library is full of them as well as hundreds more scatered throughout the campus. I'm assumeing the Macs will stay in the engineering dept. but who knows. I plan to volenteer again for helping with the supercomputer if they ask students to volenteer again. It was fun the first time.
Also It seems like tons of kids have iPods... I'd say at least 90% of people i see listening to music are iPods... That may be jsut cause I look out for ipods

Snowy_River
Jan 27, 2004, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by TechHistorian
Doesn't matter where the money came from, the G5s are university (and thus state) property. They'll end up in other departments on campus, or replace some of the boxes at the Math Emporium, or fill out some computer labs. I'm positive they all have the exact same VT Inventory sticker (with a different #) thats on the eMac I'm typing this on.

Well, speaking as someone who is currently in a graduate school working in research labs, it does matter where the money came from as to how some of the rules are applied to the resale of the hardware, etc. Now, it may not matter at VT, but again, it may.

TechHistorian
Jan 27, 2004, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
Well, speaking as someone who is currently in a graduate school working in research labs, it does matter where the money came from as to how some of the rules are applied to the resale of the hardware, etc. Now, it may not matter at VT, but again, it may.

State law applies in this case. Unless the property was leased or loaned, once it was bought for a state institution (VPI in this case) regardless of whence the funds came, it became the property of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Period. As a professor working at Tech whose spouse is a grant administrator, I know whereof I speak.

An individual computer purchased with a grant might be able to be sold or otherwise disposed of, but not an entire cluster of G5s.

windowsblowsass
Jan 27, 2004, 04:51 PM
Most of the powermacs will probably be given back to apple b/c i doubt vt will spend money for an entely new system and idoubt apple will just give them xserves this also asmart move because the xserves have ppc970fx chips which can run faster so maybe apple is giving them the higher clock speeds right off.

windowsblowsass
Jan 27, 2004, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by hvfsl
If I was them, I would have waited for the next Xserve update, probably in September. But I expect the savings on the electricity bill will make it worth it. The PowerMac G5s will be used in the University by students and teachers, I expect they have some old G3/4s that need replacing. apple probably had a deadline on when they could get the xserves lower priced

Makosuke
Jan 27, 2004, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by tiktokfx
God forbid people ever think that people who spend millions of dollars may have considered their options beforehand. Exactly. It's pointless to claim that VT and other cluster buyers are wasting money on their computers because they're not as "fast" as a true supercomputer.

It obvioustly depends wildly on what you're doing, otherwise the various distributed computing projects would be pointless, since they wouldn't scale at all.

And the bottom line for VT is, I'd certanly assume that if they were preparing to spend 5 million dollars that they spent some time checking whether a cluster or monolithic supercomputer was better suited to their needs. Obviously the cluster won, so whatever they're doing, it benefits from cluster computing.

Give the guys some credit.

army_guy
Jan 27, 2004, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by tortoise
[B


ObTrivia: The memory and I/O architecture on the Opteron is not AMD original. AMD bought the design for the next-generation Cray system and then cut it down a little bit to make it practical for small commodity systems. It is one of the reasons the memory is so bloody fast on the Opteron -- it is a subsystem originally designed for Cray. [/B]

I didnt know this, nowonder the memory system is so fast (and the DIMMS get not warm but hot underload), is NUMA the official name for this? As far has I know the OS has to be NUMA aware to obtain the rest of the theoretical bandwidth.

As for REDSTORM CRAY isnt saying anything for now, but 10000 Opteron 2xx's with CRAY interconnects sounds cool.

jettredmont
Jan 27, 2004, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by MacRAND
Notice that the new DP Xserves are exactly the same speed as the dual processor 2GHz G5s, only using the new, smaller chip.
I do not know if it is absolutely true, but I have heard (can't remember where or when) that any replacement of a G5 within the cluster must be a Dual running at the SAME SPEED as the unit being replaced. Therefore, as the Xserves migrate, say 48 at a time, and replace 48 G5s, is this the reason for the 2.0 speed and not a higher clock speed?

I remember in September 2003 asking if they could add 100 2.4GHz G5s when they came out, then 100 3.0GHz, but was told that all the computers had to be the same speed and duals.


I may be mis-recalling things here, but I believe that each node can be a different speed, but the scheduler assumes all nodes are equal and so will be less efficient with the faster nodes.

You would end up getting more processing out of a 3GHz G5 than a 2GHz G5 (assuming the cluster is set up for 2GHz G5s), but not 50% more because of the scheduling issues.

Generally speaking, you won't get your money's worth out of faster processors until the "min proc frequency" is increased. Also, it doesn't make sense to just add "whatever" processors to the cluster as that may lower your MPF and thus slow the entire cluster down.

A truly asymetric cluster would take full use of a faster processor in any one node, and adding a slow processor to the cluster would be a small net gain in performance instead of a drain on performance.

OTOH, if you didn't want an "event" upgrade and instead wanted to ease up to a faster computer base, slowly replacing the older 2GHz machines with newer 3GHz machines might be a good idea (you'd get a steady increase in performance, then a sudden jump up when the last 2GHz machine is taken off and the scheduling algorithm adjusted for the faster machines).

azdude
Jan 27, 2004, 06:19 PM
Seems a bit wasteful to me, but hey... The more macs sold the better! ;)

Snowy_River
Jan 27, 2004, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by TechHistorian
State law applies in this case. Unless the property was leased or loaned, once it was bought for a state institution (VPI in this case) regardless of whence the funds came, it became the property of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Period. As a professor working at Tech whose spouse is a grant administrator, I know whereof I speak.

An individual computer purchased with a grant might be able to be sold or otherwise disposed of, but not an entire cluster of G5s.

Fair enough. You clearly know more about this case than I do. :)

Bob Knob
Jan 27, 2004, 06:35 PM
Apple or someone close to them may be acting as a reseller for VT.

More than one of my clients in the last week have said they are seriously considering buying 100 node render farm packages being offered that use, surprise, Dual 2GHz G5 PowerMacs. All of them had been discussing Xserves with Apple before this deal popped up. None are able to comment on the particulars of the deals at this time, but one did hint these were used computers. They all seem to be considering the same packages and are currently looking at the logistics and financing for such a deal.

Steven1621
Jan 27, 2004, 06:52 PM
send one my way!

splashman
Jan 27, 2004, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by tiktokfx
God forbid people ever think that people who spend millions of dollars may have considered their options beforehand.

What a crazy idea. Are you sure you're not a troll? ;)

If everyone here took that to heart, this thread would be a couple of pages shorter.

niter
Jan 27, 2004, 07:21 PM
I am with my fellow Hokies. As a graduate student, I am well aware with purchases made by grant money. Once the Tech barcode is on something, it cannot leave Tech legally unless sold at the auction (which I highly doubt I would see these G5 there for quite awhile).

Even in cases where my research advisor gets our funding from private companies, all purchases over $2000 have to be approved and all of our instruments and computers come bearing the barcode (despite the fact that she got the money from a company and she spent it on whatever).

Several times a year, we have a team come through our labs examining EVERYTHING for inventory. If we have a computer that we do not want anymore, we need to contact them. It is rather annoying at times because I do not personally care for them poking around my personal computers....my iBook or prior when I had my personal desktop from home at my desk.

If these computers leave the Corporate Research Center, I bet they will be making their way into campus offices, labs (the new Chemistry building has chemistry labs outfited with a few G5 dual 1.8s for the undergraduates), and/or computer labs. I have no idea where they are going other than they are not going off campus. If I had to take a guess as to where a group of them would go, I would guess the Torgeson Bridge as they keep pretty modern Apples in there.

What I look forward to the most is that they are going to replace some other Mac...meaning the next Tech auction should still have some goodies. That is where I picked up a nice PowerMac G4.

tiktokfx
Jan 27, 2004, 10:38 PM
I used to run a 24 node render farm of ex-Math Emporium 7300s years ago. That was fun.

WM.
Jan 27, 2004, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by york2600
VT is currently pushing 17600 gigaflops or 16 gigaflops per machine. The number 2 spot is at 20480 gigaflops. 180 additional machines at VT would provide the additional speed necessary to match the number 2 (theoretically which doesn't really equal true speed as they don't scale perfectly).
That 17.6 Tflops number is the current theoretical max. Actual performance is 10.6 or 10.7 or something. So still quite a ways to go 'til #2--as in more than doubling their existing power.

OTOH, as other people have pointed out, the upgrade from 1100 PMG5s to 1100 Xserve G5s should in itself provide a huge improvement in actual performance (i.e. not the benchmarks that the Top 500 uses) due to the ECC RAM. Without ECC, they're running important things twice to maintain accuracy; with it, they won't have to do that anymore.

WM

mclosers
Jan 27, 2004, 11:58 PM
There is intresting "info" over at mac os rumors about faster xServes. if they put out 2.4 GHz xserves that would make the super computer like 10% faster. getting it even closer to #2. I'm sure ole' Los Alamos isn't just slouching around. They are probably gonna need to get a new Supercomputer soon now that a 5 million dollar one can almost achieve the same performance.

Snowy_River
Jan 28, 2004, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by mclosers
There is intresting "info" over at mac os rumors about faster xServes. if they put out 2.4 GHz xserves that would make the super computer like 10% faster. getting it even closer to #2. I'm sure ole' Los Alamos isn't just slouching around. They are probably gonna need to get a new Supercomputer soon now that a 5 million dollar one can almost achieve the same performance.

For what it's worth, there are known cases of MacOSRumors making up rumors just to get hits. I'd highly suspect the rumors about "classified government contracts" as being in that catagory...

rikers_mailbox
Jan 28, 2004, 01:20 AM
If they keep all the G5's and distribute them across their local network, they could play with XGrid. Wonder what kind of flopping that would get?

Can there please be a new rumor already?? I'm getting bored.

-rik

Snowy_River
Jan 28, 2004, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by rikers_mailbox
If they keep all the G5's and distribute them across their local network, they could play with XGrid. Wonder what kind of flopping that would get?

Can there please be a new rumor already?? I'm getting bored.

-rik

I hear you. I keep checking the front page to see if there's anything new. Nada...

el gringo
Jan 28, 2004, 03:35 AM
being a mac-addict is almost worse than a "true" drug-addict ;)

Corpus_Callosum
Jan 28, 2004, 04:11 AM
The obvious:

Apple trades in 1100 G5s from VT for 1100 2.4Ghz XServes. It is done all at once in another big build by VT.

Apple laser-engraves the sides of these 1100 G5s with a very nice tribute to the supercomputer that these G5s were a part of and then places them on sale for a premium in the Apple store.

Everyone wins and the Big Mac becomes 20% faster.

Mikekmac
Jan 28, 2004, 07:25 AM
I think this move was in the original plan. Tech had to have machines in early Fall to meet the Linpak deadline in October. Xserve G5s couldn't possibly be ready by the deadline, so they had to use towers. Now the Xserves are ready, and they have error correcting memory. Both have gotten great publicity, and now it starts all over again, what is wrong with that?

bcsimac
Jan 28, 2004, 12:17 PM
I would give one of these G5's a nice, nice, very nice home! :)http://forums.macrumors.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

I need to upgrade from an old iMac anyway. I just wish I had the money.

Neo_sonic
Jan 28, 2004, 04:24 PM
neat..if anyone from VT is looking..IM A GOOD HOME!

WM.
Jan 28, 2004, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Corpus_Callosum
The obvious:

Apple trades in 1100 G5s from VT for 1100 2.4Ghz XServes. It is done all at once in another big build by VT.

Apple laser-engraves the sides of these 1100 G5s with a very nice tribute to the supercomputer that these G5s were a part of and then places them on sale for a premium in the Apple store.
LOL, have you been paying any attention at all? People have been suggesting that since the topic first came up and now in this thread we have VT people from undergrads to professors telling us that in Virginia (and especially at VT, apparently), there are very strict rules about school property and it's extremely unlikely that these G5s will make it off-campus.

Not to flame you, but really, especially considering your subject...

But nice nick, BTW! :D My Latin-English dictionary is not convenient at the moment, but..."hard body"? Is that what you were going for?

WM

Corpus_Callosum
Jan 28, 2004, 06:18 PM
we have VT people from undergrads to professors telling us that in Virginia (and especially at VT, apparently), there are very strict rules about school property and it's extremely unlikely that these G5s will make it off-campus.

Actually, I think that swapping them out for XServes was part of the original plan - in which case, if Apple is taking them back and exchanging them, they shouldn't be violating any rules at all. My point was just that Apple could sell them at a premium.

I have seen all of the eBay, VT direct, etc.. posts.. But to my knowledge, nobody had suggested a special VT Supercomputer node edition engraved G5 from the Apple Store.

Did they?

jimjiminyjim
Jan 28, 2004, 06:31 PM
Since no one has posted this yet, I would care for one of those dual G5's, making a "good home".

And no one better copy my post.

That said, I think this topic has been fairly quickly well beaten. If VT knows that the towers will have a good home, they know where they're going. The point of a huge setup like they've got is not to be continually on the bleeding edge, but to enjoy being their once, then get to work.

edited for clarity

WM.
Jan 28, 2004, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by Corpus_Callosum
Actually, I think that swapping them out for XServes was part of the original plan - in which case, if Apple is taking them back and exchanging them, they shouldn't be violating any rules at all. My point was just that Apple could sell them at a premium.
I dunno, it seems to me like the Power Macs are school property at this point, even if the Xserve upgrade was already in the plan...I suppose it is possible that Apple somehow got someone to waive the requirement on this, but anyone with any connection to VT has been pretty adamant that there are almost never exceptions to the rules (at least that's my interpretation).
I have seen all of the eBay, VT direct, etc.. posts.. But to my knowledge, nobody had suggested a special VT Supercomputer node edition engraved G5 from the Apple Store.

Did they?
Variations on the theme, at least. Certainly people have suggested each one being engraved with a unique number ("796 of 1100" or whatever) and then resold on the Apple Store. I'm not trying to jump all over you, but I guess I don't like it when people wade in with The Obvious Truth That You've All Been Missing. Well, I don't mind it when people have that truth; I mind it when they loudly proclaim that they have it. :)

WM

Snowy_River
Jan 28, 2004, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by WM.
I dunno, it seems to me like the Power Macs are school property at this point, even if the Xserve upgrade was already in the plan...I suppose it is possible that Apple somehow got someone to waive the requirement on this, but anyone with any connection to VT has been pretty adamant that there are almost never exceptions to the rules (at least that's my interpretation).

Actually, the only comment that's been made about the 'trade-in' idea was that it generated a lot of paperwork.

Originally posted by hokiethang
... I have my doubts that they will send them back to apple as well because of the insane amount of paperwork ...

All of the comments about the laws have to do with reselling the computers.

Originally posted by hokiethang
Virginia has budget laws and included in those is that all machinery sold by the university to private/commercial organizations must be 5 or more years old, and not needed/requested by any other department in the university.

So, based on this, while VT could return them to Apple, they could not resell them to the general public. By extension, if it was already part of the plan to replace the PM G5s with Xserves, then maybe the paperwork was taken care of ahead of time. I know that if I was in charge of making the purchase, I'd rather have to do a little extra paperwork and get the Xserves. Given the number of computers involved, it would seem a reasonable sacrifice...

WM.
Jan 29, 2004, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
Actually, the only comment that's been made about the 'trade-in' idea was that it generated a lot of paperwork.

All of the comments about the laws have to do with reselling the computers.

So, based on this, while VT could return them to Apple, they could not resell them to the general public. By extension, if it was already part of the plan to replace the PM G5s with Xserves, then maybe the paperwork was taken care of ahead of time. I know that if I was in charge of making the purchase, I'd rather have to do a little extra paperwork and get the Xserves. Given the number of computers involved, it would seem a reasonable sacrifice...
*shrug* Seems plausible, I guess. The "good homes" comment in the press release does make me think that VT will be more involved in the re-distribution of the G5s than just sending them back to Apple, which would imply that the G5s stay on-campus.

WM

Skiniftz
Jan 29, 2004, 07:16 PM
Perhaps this is another reason to upgrade (read the specs carefully) :)

http://www.apple.com/xserve/images/xs_indextop_010604.gif

WM.
Jan 29, 2004, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by Skiniftz
Perhaps this is another reason to upgrade (read the specs carefully) :)

[16 GB of RAM]
Well, there are 2 GB DIMMs out there. I wouldn't know if the Xserve and/or Power Mac G5 can take advantage of them, though...

WM

MacRAND
Jan 30, 2004, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by Skiniftz
Perhaps this is another reason to upgrade (read the specs carefully) :)
http://www.apple.com/xserve/images/xs_indextop_010604.gif While 16GB of RAM can be installed if 2GB RAM chips are used in 8 available slots, to my knowledge this is the first time anyone has caught Apple disclosing that fact. BRAVO! Skiniftz (Apparently, the only mistake about "16GB" in the image, is that it was not yet supposed to be displayed!)
(You can still click on the above hypertext link and it will take you to the 16GB image on the Apple website) :) CAVEAT: 16GB total RAM may only be possible if the Xserve or G5 tower is "dual", otherwise, a single G5 may support only up to 8GB total.

However, the image has now been replaced with: http://www.apple.com/xserve/
and currently reads
"Up to 8GB of DDR SDRAM with ECC" and the text below the image says:
"Introducing the classiest 1U server with dual 64-bit processors. At speeds of up to 2.0GHz, Xserve G5 packs in the same G5 processor that powers the world’s third fastest supercomputer cluster.
"The advanced G5 architecture provides an industry-leading front-side bus dedicated to each CPU as well as up to 8GB DDR SDRAM with ECC protection."

Also, on page 15 (out of 30) of the Xserve G5 Tech Overview PDF document download, it states in the first paragraph -- http://www.apple.com/xserve/
Support for up to 8GB of RAM
Xserve G5 comes standard with 512MB or 1GB of DDR SDRAM.Main memory is scalable up to 8GB in eight DIMM slots,allowing you to increase memory as application and networking requirements increase."

CONGRATULATIONS Snowy and other HighTech gurus who after reading Apple's specs for the G5 when they first came out, told us back in September 2003 that its architecture was designed to hold up to 16GB of DDR SDRAM predicting such "disclosure" by Apple, if and when 2GB chips become "readily available", but that Apple will only "advertise" 8GB total since only 1GB chips were then "readily available".

Hail to the MacRumor HighTech gurus, (bow) I am not worthy, (bow) I am not worthy...

army_guy
Jan 30, 2004, 06:57 AM
2GB DDR 400 ECC Registered Crucial DIMMS $999 in stock and shipping from crucial since last week. Until they actually have the G5 Xservers to test the RAM they might work then they might not.

so far only 512, 256, 128MB modules have been confirmed working, id wait abit longer to see what happens.

strangelogic
Feb 11, 2004, 07:03 PM
Probably you've all seen it by now - but they are selling off G5's from the cluster at MacMall...

panphage
Feb 14, 2004, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by WM.
But nice nick, BTW! :D My Latin-English dictionary is not convenient at the moment, but..."hard body"? Is that what you were going for?
WM

The corpus callosum is the nerve pathway that connects the two sides of the cerebrum in higher mammals.