Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Can you make a supercomputer out of two iMacs?
- Thread starter hallaisen
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You are fundamentally misunderstanding how supercomputers work/what they are used for! They are amazingly fast at processing workloads that can be split into discrete work units, distributed to all the processing units, processed and then recombined. This is basically the complete opposite of almost all desktop tasks. So can you combine them and run standard desktop software quickly by using the resources of both? No. Can you use two (or more) Macs with a small number of specialist applications to achieve some speedup? Yes. One of the obvious ones is XCodes distributed builds.
Splitting work across multiple computers requires special software. Its basically running two separate programs and combining the results.
Connecting computers and making them work as one is not possible. Even connections like Thunderbolt don't have enough bandwidth for that.
Connecting computers and making them work as one is not possible. Even connections like Thunderbolt don't have enough bandwidth for that.
I like your thinking. I'd thought the same but more along the lines of using primary and secondary systems linked together by thunderbolt; have everything your not actually working on sitting or running in the background like burning a dvd or rendering final cut on the secondary system and the programme you are working on on the primary.
Almost like having one imac with two screens except that the second screen also has it's own processor, and you actively either drag the programs between screens.
I could see the concept working but it would rely on the program using the processor of the screen to which it is currently sitting on and is there really any point to that, may as well just use two imacs' in the first place.
I've put this link up before which is ran by CERN and while its not related to this topic it is a good place to get more concept ideas.
http://www.gridcafe.org
Almost like having one imac with two screens except that the second screen also has it's own processor, and you actively either drag the programs between screens.
I could see the concept working but it would rely on the program using the processor of the screen to which it is currently sitting on and is there really any point to that, may as well just use two imacs' in the first place.
I've put this link up before which is ran by CERN and while its not related to this topic it is a good place to get more concept ideas.
http://www.gridcafe.org
Compared to a Cray 1 or Cray 2 supercomputer from the 60's . . . we all have "supercomputers."
The original Crays did 1 - 2 gigaflops, while the current iMacs likely do a teraflop!.
The original Crays did 1 - 2 gigaflops, while the current iMacs likely do a teraflop!.
No. You'll also need a cape, regardless of what Edna Mode might say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M68ndaZSKa8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M68ndaZSKa8
All the current Mac lineup already are supercomputers. A supercomputer is a computer that has multiple processors working in parallel to speed computational jobs up by dividing them across multiple processors rather than a single one. When I run handbrake on my iMac, it divides the job across all 4 cores in parallel, ie it works as a supercomputer.
An extension of the supercomputer is the cluster, in which a number of physically separate computers are connected together to work in parallel. The distinction here is that in a regular supercomputer, all processors are on the same shared bus as all the memory, so that all processors can access all the memory at the speed and latency of the bus. In a cluster, each node has its own independent memory, and the connections between nodes is very much slower than the bus speed. To take advantage of a cluster, not only does the processing load need to be divided into a number of parallel streams, the memory storage needs to be divided too, so that the data passed between nodes is kept to a minimum. This is only really used where seriously large computational power is needed, for example in university research and heavy duty industrial R&D.
While you could build a cluster out of macs with ethernet interconnects, this is a very cost-ineffective way of doing it as the hardware comes with plenty of expensive kit (like screens) that is of no use to this kind of number crunching. A cluster of Mac Pros might be worthwhile (or conceivably minis), but there are far better solutions to the problem out there (with hardware chosen and assembled with this purpose specifically in mind). If you want really big clusters, then you are looking at specialist rack mount kit (think Xserves) and a dedicated staff to maintain the thing.
An extension of the supercomputer is the cluster, in which a number of physically separate computers are connected together to work in parallel. The distinction here is that in a regular supercomputer, all processors are on the same shared bus as all the memory, so that all processors can access all the memory at the speed and latency of the bus. In a cluster, each node has its own independent memory, and the connections between nodes is very much slower than the bus speed. To take advantage of a cluster, not only does the processing load need to be divided into a number of parallel streams, the memory storage needs to be divided too, so that the data passed between nodes is kept to a minimum. This is only really used where seriously large computational power is needed, for example in university research and heavy duty industrial R&D.
While you could build a cluster out of macs with ethernet interconnects, this is a very cost-ineffective way of doing it as the hardware comes with plenty of expensive kit (like screens) that is of no use to this kind of number crunching. A cluster of Mac Pros might be worthwhile (or conceivably minis), but there are far better solutions to the problem out there (with hardware chosen and assembled with this purpose specifically in mind). If you want really big clusters, then you are looking at specialist rack mount kit (think Xserves) and a dedicated staff to maintain the thing.
Hi,
here IS supercomputer:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ3CJw-u2cc&feature=related]
You have Mickey - oh, pardon me = iMac...:
here IS supercomputer:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ3CJw-u2cc&feature=related]
You have Mickey - oh, pardon me = iMac...:
Attachments
Yes. BUT I wouldn't describe this arrangement as a Supercomputer.
Most 3D applications are capable of distributing processing across multiple computers for rendering.
Thunderbolt is irrelevant for these applications, ethernet is already proven and more robust.
Google XGrid for some other possibilities using OS X Lion Server.
Also, you could buy a Mac Pro with 8-Cores or 12-Cores (maybe 16-Cores soon) and 2 1080p 21.5 or 24 inch LED screens for less than two iMacs, or you could add a Mac Mini Server to gan iMac to get the extra cores...
Most 3D applications are capable of distributing processing across multiple computers for rendering.
Thunderbolt is irrelevant for these applications, ethernet is already proven and more robust.
Google XGrid for some other possibilities using OS X Lion Server.
Also, you could buy a Mac Pro with 8-Cores or 12-Cores (maybe 16-Cores soon) and 2 1080p 21.5 or 24 inch LED screens for less than two iMacs, or you could add a Mac Mini Server to gan iMac to get the extra cores...
"Can you make a supercomputer out of two iMacs? "
Yes. Yes you can...
But don't go gettin' delusions of grandeur, these setups won't be pulling any higher framerates for you in Call of Duty
Yes. Yes you can...
But don't go gettin' delusions of grandeur, these setups won't be pulling any higher framerates for you in Call of Duty
Even tough this thread is over 1 year old, if anyone is still interested... OS X comes preinstalled with a task batching system called XGrid, which allows you to split a task between multiple macs on a network. We use this thing in our university department, it's lots of fun
I have no idea about the $$$ but some of the pro users of the Mac Pro might want to look at this Cray.