Xserve Clustering

[Dj Kioto]

correct me if I'm mistaken but...

wouldn't this mean that it could offer cluster across G3s, iMacs, and any other computer if they are all using the same version of OS X, assuming said version actually supports clustering capabilities

 

[Dj Kioto]

correct me if I'm mistaken but...

wouldn't this mean that it could offer cluster across G3s, iMacs, and any other computer if they are all using the same version of OS X, assuming said version actually supports clustering capabilities

 

[PyroTurtle]

i'll take 42 xserves clusterd together then...
yay for folding then!
have fun dreaming everyone!

 

[Quixcube]

mac load sharing

Anyone up to snuff on the idea behind Sony's new PS3 network computer grid design? From what I understand, the idea is that as PS3s come online, they offer up their available processing power and combine to create a grid computer capable of doing things that a lone PS3 couldn't manage. Machines share processor cycles etc. (Is this accurate at all? I am not a PS3 rumor person.) So now on to Apple

I wonder if Apple is considering something like this for their machines. Xserves first, but maybe all of their machines further down the road. At any given time across the campus where I work, many Macs are sitting idle or mostly idle while others are chugging away at some pretty impressive calculations. If some friendly technology like Rendezvous could help the Macs that are swamped find the macs that are idle, and if the software existed in the OS to help share their processing power, interesting things could happen.

Of course, the machines could only be as interactive as their connections to each other are fast, but the possibility is exciting. In an ideal environment (switched office, campus, server farm), you could increase the power of all of your existing Macs by adding new Macs to the network. That's investment protection for you.

On a more immediate note, I set up one of the new dual 1.33Ghz Xserve's this week and was stumped by a third "ethernet" interface that shows up in the Network Port Configuration settings. This port wasn't available on the first generation Xserves. I asked one of Apple's support people about it (while he was helping me track down some evil Netboot problems) and he said that the third ethernet interface actually refers to one of the new firewire 800 ports on the back of the machine. The idea being that a cluster can have firewire ethernet connections, leaving the standard ethernet interfaces free for Netbooting, web hosting, etc. The new firewire ethernet port can be configured with all of the settings that the other conventional ports have, although I really don't have a way to try it out. I would be willing to bet that both firewire interfaces could be used just as easily in the future for a *very* well connected cluster.

All of this computer combining makes me want to dig out my old Voltron

 

[Catfish_Man]

Re: mac load sharing

Originally posted by Quixcube
Anyone up to snuff on the idea behind Sony's new PS3 network computer grid design? From what I understand, the idea is that as PS3s come online, they offer up their available processing power and combine to create a grid computer capable of doing things that a lone PS3 couldn't manage. Machines share processor cycles etc. (Is this accurate at all? I am not a PS3 rumor person.) So now on to Apple

I wonder if Apple is considering something like this for their machines. Xserves first, but maybe all of their machines further down the road. At any given time across the campus where I work, many Macs are sitting idle or mostly idle while others are chugging away at some pretty impressive calculations. If some friendly technology like Rendezvous could help the Macs that are swamped find the macs that are idle, and if the software existed in the OS to help share their processing power, interesting things could happen.

Of course, the machines could only be as interactive as their connections to each other are fast, but the possibility is exciting. In an ideal environment (switched office, campus, server farm), you could increase the power of all of your existing Macs by adding new Macs to the network. That's investment protection for you.

On a more immediate note, I set up one of the new dual 1.33Ghz Xserve's this week and was stumped by a third "ethernet" interface that shows up in the Network Port Configuration settings. This port wasn't available on the first generation Xserves. I asked one of Apple's support people about it (while he was helping me track down some evil Netboot problems) and he said that the third ethernet interface actually refers to one of the new firewire 800 ports on the back of the machine. The idea being that a cluster can have firewire ethernet connections, leaving the standard ethernet interfaces free for Netbooting, web hosting, etc. The new firewire ethernet port can be configured with all of the settings that the other conventional ports have, although I really don't have a way to try it out. I would be willing to bet that both firewire interfaces could be used just as easily in the future for a *very* well connected cluster.

All of this computer combining makes me want to dig out my old Voltron

It SEEMS like it ought to be relatively easy to set up some sort of unintrusive autoclustering that just borrows free CPU time from other computers on the network. Rendezvous would find the computers, and mach would share threads. The trick would be deciding which threads to share based on network latency, without using too much CPU time for the task doing the deciding. If it worked, then each new Mac plugged into the network (if it had the "share processor(s) over network" checkbox checked) would speed up all the other machines slightly. It would be *great* for schools; think about a 3D graphics class where absent student's computers were "borrowed" for renders, and kids could come in before or after class to use the whole cluster. <drools>

btw, WWDC is going to have a session on clustering.

 

[hotFusion]

Interesting

I have recently been charged with upgrading all of the systems in our office (which currently consists of Mac SEs/Performa 4xx and Laserwriter IIs which are passed being on their last legs and are actually hovering in mid-air) and this entire discussion intrigues me deeply. The idea that all of our machines, which are going to networked with GB Ethernet (it's there, so why not), could be harnessed so seamlessly is very appealing in deed. Most of what we do is publishing, and most of the machines will be used to simply write articles, but the idea that the couple of machines that will be used to render images and video could use the other machines when they are not in use (which is quite often considering their schedules) makes me very interested in the future of this technology ( hmm).