Business Tech

As you may remember, in Microsoft's most recent round of layoffs, the company laid off Director of Business Development Don Dodge. Dodge is very respected in the start-up community and tirelessly defended Microsoft's technologies at conferences and to developers during his time at the company. When he was let go, many people were shocked by the move and were watching intently to see who would pick him up. On Monday, Dodge announced on his blog that he will be joining Google in a similar capacity to his role at Microsoft.

Now, Dodge will focus on evangelizing Google's technologies and platforms, instead of Microsoft's, to the developer community. Dodge said that within 90 minutes of the news of his layoff becoming public, Vic Gundotra, Google's VP of engineering (who also came from Microsoft), contacted him about this job opportunity with the company. On his blog, Dodge claims that he has already switched over to Gmail, Google Apps, and Chrome from their Microsoft counterparts.

It's great to see that Dodge landed on his feet so quickly after being ousted from his position at Microsoft and he will likely be a great asset to Google in dealing with the developer community.

Intel on Monday disclosed a version of its Xeon processor line optimized for supercomputers and announced a partnership with NEC to develop future supercomputers.

At Supercomputing 2009 in Portland, Ore., Intel unveiled a future version of its "Nehalem-EX" processor optimized for supercomputers. The six-core chip will run at higher speeds than eight-core versions of the Nehalem-EX processors and will offer advantages for supercomputer specific tasks, Intel said in a statement. Intel also refers to supercomputing as high-performance computing, or HPC.

The chip architecture will offer greater memory speeds and capacity and will allow customers to build single computers or "nodes" with up to 256 such processors, according to Intel. This will be available next year, Intel said.

Intel said Monday that four out of every five supercomputers on the Top500 list published Monday are powered by Intel processors.

Intel also announced that it is partnering with Japan's NEC--that country's largest supercomputer vendor--to jointly develop technologies "that will push the boundaries of supercomputing performance," according to a joint statement.

NEC will use the technologies in future supercomputers based on the Intel Xeon processor and other technologies such as AVX (Advanced Vector Extensions), an extension to Intel's x86 instruction set architecture.

AVX will be used with Intel's upcoming Sandy Bridge microarchitecture due in 2011, according to Intel.

"With NEC further innovating on Intel Xeon processor-based systems, Intel is poised to bring Intel Xeon processor performance to an even wider supercomputing audience, " said Richard Dracott, general manager of Intel's High Performance Computing Group, in a statement.

Fumihiko Hisamitsu, general manager of HPC Division at NEC, said: "NEC's substantial experience in the development of vector processing systems...is a natural fit for taking Intel architecture further into new markets."

A vector processor design can perform operations on multiple data elements simultaneously. Intel Xeon chips are good at scalar processing, which handles one data item at a time.

The initial focus of the collaboration will be the development of technology to boost the memory speed and scalability--the latter refers to expanding a system to increase performance or capacity. "Such enhancements are intended to benefit systems targeting not only the very high end of the scientific computing market segment, but also to benefit smaller HPC installations," the two companies said.

NEC will also continue to sell its existing SX vector processor-based products. NEC, for example, currently markets the SX-9 supercomputer.

This week's Supercomputing 2009 in Portland, Ore., puts the spotlight on the highest of high-end computing systems.

Intel unveils supercomputer chip, NEC partnership

The chipmaker has disclosed a version of its Xeon processor line optimized for high-performance computing. The company also announces it's teaming up with NEC.
(Posted in Nanotech: The Circuits Blog by Brooke Crothers)
November 16, 2009 1:35 PM PST

Microsoft testing Excel for supercomputers

At the SC09 conference, Microsoft releases an updated version of Windows Server for high-performance computers as well as a compute cluster version of its Excel spreadsheet.
(Posted in Beyond Binary by Ina Fried)
November 16, 2009 9:40 AM PST

Jaguar supercomputer races past Roadrunner in Top500

The Cray XT5 supercomputer known as "Jaguar" finally bests IBM after three tries. The top 10, while still dominated by supercomputers housed in the U.S., had just one newcomer.
(Posted in Circuit Breaker by Erica Ogg)
November 15, 2009 9:00 PM PST

previous coverage

Roadrunner supercomputer maps HIV family tree

Researchers are using IBM's Roadrunner to analyze tens of thousands of genetic sequences from individuals with HIV in the hopes of zeroing in on vaccine target areas.
(Posted in Health Tech by Elizabeth Armstrong Moore)
October 28, 2009 6:25 PM PDT

Supercomputer to use new Nvidia 'Fermi' chip

Oak Ridge National Laboratory announces plans for a new supercomputer that will use Nvidia's next generation GPU architecture.
(Posted in Nanotech: The Circuits Blog by Brooke Crothers)
September 30, 2009 3:05 PM PDT

How Intel's supercomputer almost used HP chips

In the 1990s, Intel seriously considered building the world's fastest supercomputer with a rival's processors, but the Pentium Pro arrived in time after all.
(Posted in Deep Tech by Stephen Shankland)
September 22, 2009 8:09 AM PDT

Cloud computing providers have a difficult marketing challenge, in my opinion. Think about it--no matter what service model or deployment model a provider is delivering, they must differentiate their service while meeting the "commodity" needs of as many customers as possible. It would seem these businesses are stuck between providing least common denominator service capabilities and being accused of intentional customer lock-in.

From a customer perspective, it is equally challenging when one is "looking for servers and storage" and must choose between a bunch of services that essentially run Linux or Windows and store your files. How does one choose? How do the cloud providers set themselves apart in the customers' eyes?

Unfortunately, I've been inundated of late by an increasing number of cloud service announcements that lack any sense of differentiation. Hosting providers are announcing "on-demand server capacity billed on a pay-as-you-go basis." Platform vendors are simply announcing what language they support, and how much they charge for services. Software-as-a-Service vendors have the easiest job to differentiate service, as they can do so based on functionality alone if they wish, but even there some vendors struggle to differentiate themselves by anything other than the fact they run as a cloud service.

This has to change. Forrester's James Staten is telling us that clients are getting "cloud weary." I believe a lot of this has to do with the ridiculousness of "cloudwashing" that we've seen for some products and services, and the relative monotony of pitches for things are arguably cloud services, especially in the IaaS space.

Below is a list of five key categories of competitive differentiation for cloud computing. It is not a complete list, nor do I think all vendors would look at this question in the same way. However, if you are looking to acquire cloud services, these are the elements I think you start with as you evaluate any service, be it SaaS, PaaS, or IaaS. If you are selling these services, consider this an outline for your next requirements document.

1. Ease of operations. Yeah, I could have kept things simple and just said "ease of use," but "use" in the cloud computing service sense is much more than how humans interact with the system. For instance, how does a company with hundreds of applications in the cloud strewn across a dozen or more vendors monitor and manage those applications to manageable service levels?

   And yes, phenomenal user interfaces will set some providers apart from others, but it will be the "behind the scenes" interfaces--such as APIs, publish and subscribe event streams, transparency and auditability systems, etc.--that will make the most significant differences between providers.

   Will many of the aspects of "ease of operations" be standardized? Sure. The Open Cloud Computing Interface (OCCI) is an example of an attempt to deal with a large part of this challenge. However, differentiation will still be possible through extensions, quality of features and--yes--some custom interfaces.

2. Configurability. One of the things about today's best-known cloud computing environments is that they are essentially infrastructure and software architecture frameworks that dictate a lot about the application architectures that can be built on them. For example, the Amazon Web Services Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) allows each server to be on one widely shared network. No separation of management traffic from DMZ traffic here (at least not explicitly from the point of view of the OS).

   No, application architects are instead forced to consider how they would build and operate their application in the infrastructure architecture given them. Good books have been written with this in mind, but ultimately the complexity of the problems we wish to solve with information technology will dictate the amount of configurability we require from our infrastructure systems--even if they are delivered as a service by a third party.

   The low-hanging fruit here for IaaS vendors are things like network architectures, data storage options, server options and so on. Also useful here are services that enhance the infrastructure, like security systems, message queueing, and storage tiering.

3. Performance. One public relations contact I got recently was quite interesting. A hosting company sent me an email indicating that they have an increasing number of customers coming to them from AWS, and finding that their applications actually perform better in the former than the latter. I haven't confirmed the truth of that claim, but it is an interesting claim nonetheless.

   Processing speed, memory speed, storage access, read and write speeds, latency, bandwidth--these are all things that are tunable by the cloud provider, either through technology acquisition, or through superior engineering and operations expertise. And, as with servers and storage, the fastest speeds per dollar spent will generally win.

   I would not be surprised if we saw a cloud performance war, similar to the RDBMS benchmark wars, especially in the IaaS category (though it would make sense in the PaaS and SaaS categories as well).

4. Reliability and security. I debated combining these two elements, as they represent different aspects of the same concept. However, that core concept--risk mitigation--is at the heart of so much of the decision over whether public cloud services are better than private data centers, that I think they will often be viewed through the same lens.

   Companies will need time to demonstrate differentiation in both of these categories, but features can be introduced today to increase the transparency of both operations and security in any provider. Redundant distributed data stores, "early warning" DDoS detection events, auditability APIs; these are all features that would "open the kimono" in a controlled fashion and increase customer's ability to trust that their provider has made the protection and availability of their data and functionality a core competency.

5. Customer service. After I wrote my closing post for the "big rethink" series, Kevin Magee, COO of ZeroTouch IT, wrote a post in which he noted several additional predictions for the effect of cloud computing on IT. Most notably, he pointed out that cloud will change "[h]ow Vendor Relationship Management will become a key discipline in IT organizations." Amen, brother, and I completely agree.

   In a tongue-in-cheek post from early 2008, I noted that system administrators should "get good at waiting on hold for customer service representatives." In reality, there is truth to that, but the providers have a lot of room to craft that experience.

   One thing they can do is advance the technical leading edge in terms of customer self-service and operations transparency. (Hmm. Has anyone else noted how often 'transparancy' comes up in this discussion.) I noted some ideas about this in a previous post. Smart providers will find others.

Cloud computing is one of those truly disruptive market opportunities that makes or breaks companies. The winners will find ways to differntiate. Those that don't almost certainly can't win. So, please, no more press releases that fail to differentiate in any meaningful way.

AT&T has unveiled its latest cloud-based offering, which lets businesses grab more computing capacity when they need it.

The company announced on Monday its Synaptic Compute as a Service, designed to let IT staffers store and maintain internal applications and data via AT&T's cloud. Capacity and availability can be ramped up when needed, especially if a company's own data center resources become taxed, AT&T said.

The service is designed is to help businesses save money by not having to maintain full network capacity year-round if demand only shoots up during certain times of the year. AT&T said that businesses can seamlessly access the software and content they need, whether stored internally or out on AT&T's network cloud.

Synaptic Compute "provides a much-needed choice for IT executives who worry about over-building or under-investing in the capacity needed to handle their users' traffic demands," Roman Pacewicz, senior vice president of strategy and application services for AT&T Business Solutions, said in a statement.

AT&T plans to introduce the service before year's end. Initially, it will be available only in the U.S.

Though cloud computing has grown in popularity among enterprise customers, concerns exist about both security and reliability. AT&T said that it has built security on top of its cloud layer, so that it is fully integrated. The company also expressed confidence in its track record of reliability, both in its own data centers and in its hosting and network businesses.

Since last year, AT&T has focused more on the industry push toward cloud computing for its customers. In May, the company announced its first Synaptic Services feature--Synaptic Storage as a Service--which lets customers access data on AT&T's cloud as needed, paying only for the storage they use.

IBM on Monday is expected to unveil Blue Insight, a massive business analytics cloud that will hold more than a petabyte of data. This internal cloud computing environment will be the basis for future external services.

Internally, IBM's effort is dubbed Blue Insight, a business analytics cloud that will give 200,000 employees access to key corporate data around the world. Blue Insight will suck in data from 100 different data stores and warehouses. The data will then be dished out to salespeople and developers.

According to IBM, Blue Insight is a showcase of the "eat your own dog food" mantra. The system is built using Cognos, IBM's business intelligence software, and hardware systems such as System Z, the company's mainframe (right).

Going forward, IBM said it will add structured and unstructured data to Blue Insight. Some of this data will include revenue forecasts and sales quotas, product breakdowns, queries from real-time data and inventory levels and defects.

Read more of "IBM launches private business analytics cloud; Eyes 'easily consumable' BI for the masses" at ZDNet.

The Cray XT5 supercomputer known as "Jaguar" has finally clawed its way to the title of fastest computer in the world.

Sitting back at No. 2 on the Top500 list of supercomputers for more than a year, Jaguar overtook IBM's "Roadrunner" according to the twice-yearly list that will be unveiled Tuesday at the SC09 Conference in Portland, Ore.

Jaguar beat out the competition by showing it can process 1.75 petaflop/s, or quadrillions of floating point operations per second, according to the Top500 Linpack benchmark. IBM's Roadrunner was pushed back to No. 2 by posting a processing speed of 1.04 petaflop/s, a dip from the 1.105 petaflop/s it reached in a June 2009 test. The slower performance this time around is apparently due to a repartitioning of the system.

Every six months when the Top500 List is released the threshold to grab a place on it gets higher. The slowest supercomputer (No. 500) on November's list posted a speed of 20 teraflop/s, up from the 17.1 teraflop/s of six months ago. In other words, what is the slowest computer this time around would have been No. 336 in June.

Kraken, another Cray XT5 system, jumped up two places from its former No. 5 position by posting a processing performance speed of 832 teraflop/s. IBM's BlueGene/P, from Forschungszentrum Juelich in Germany, came in at No. 4 with 825.5 teraflop/s. At No. 5 is China's Tianhe-1, the highest ranking ever for a Chinese supercomputer.

The top 10, while still dominated by supercomputers housed in the United States, had just one newcomer. That would be Sandia National Laboratories' "Red Sky," a Sun Blade system that posted a Linpack performance of 423 teraflop/s.

Just as the last time the list was released, the Top500 list is made up mostly of Hewlett-Packard and IBM computers. HP accounted for 210 of this year's 500, and IBM 185. In terms of processors in use, Intel still enjoys the lion's share, with 80 percent. The most popular operating system is Linux, with 90 percent of the Top500.

Here's the Top 10:

• Jaguar, Cray, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (1.75 petaflop/s)

• Roadrunner, IBM, Los Alamos National Laboratory (1.04 petaflop/s)

• Kraken XT5, Cray, National Institute for Computational Sciences (832 teraflop/s)

• JUGENE, IBM, Forschungszentrum Juelich (825.5 teraflop/s)

• Tianhe-1, NUDT, National SuperComputer Center in Tianjin (563.1 teraflop/s)

• Pleiades, SGI, NASA Ames Research Center (544.3 teraflop/s)

• BlueGeneL, IBM, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (478.2 teraflop/s)

• BlueGene/P, IBM, Argonne National Laboratory (458.61 teraflop/s)

• Ranger, Sun, Texas Advanced Computing Center (433.20 teraflop/s)

• Red Sky, Sun, Sandia National Laboratories (423.9 teraflop/s)

For the full Top500 List head to the official site.

I'm going to break from the well-established tradition of comparing Netbooks to notebooks. This time my yardstick is going to be the smartphone. And no better yardstick than the Apple iPhone.

This post updates a year-old piece (which, by the way, at least one writer took exception to).

As the holiday-shopping season approaches, many consumers face an ostensible choice between an inexpensive Netbook or more expensive notebook. I personally face that choice (or, at least, I thought I did).

Let me state up front that though I have used Netbooks on a temporary basis, I have never owned one.

I (now) believe that Netbook comparisons to mainstream laptops (which will always disappoint because Netbooks are slower, screens smaller, keyboards more cramped--and this list of comparative shortcomings is long) is really the wrong way to look at it. Let me illustrate.

I recently interviewed the chief technology officer for a large school district in Louisiana that had purchased a lot of Netbooks. And I asked what I thought was the most pertinent question: weren't performance and screen size a concern? She quickly pointed out that my perspective was all wrong.

In short, students in K through 12 are accustomed to iPhone-size screens and performance. So moving to a Netbook is a big step up. From this perspective, the screens are large, the keyboards expansive, and the performance more than adequate.

This suddenly made a lot of sense to me because of my personal experience. Take the iPhone 3GS (or Motorola Droid or BlackBerry Storm, take your pick ). To state the obvious, in many respects, this is a personal computer platform for e-mail, texting, Web surfing, music, navigation, YouTube, and the list goes on.

In other words, the iPhone is for consuming data and media as well as light production. Like the Netbook. But the Netbook, obviously, takes this to the next level. It adds a keyboard and a larger screen, which also makes it potentially a better production platform. So, it's an iPhone Plus, if you will.

And here's the real proof in the pudding. Where do you see Netbooks being sold these days (think Nokia Booklet)? At phone carriers, like Verizon. The last time I visited a Verizon store, it had 3G Netbooks prominently displayed right next to the Motorola Droid.

The point seems obvious to me now. Want to be more productive? Step up to a Netbook. And this follows the same logic of the CTO at the Louisiana school district. And upcoming tablets and media pads from Apple and others will also be marketed as a high-end iPhone-like device, in my opinion.

So, in the next month or so when I try to sort out which Netbook to buy (This CNET review says the HP Mini 5101 is one of the best Netbooks on the market now), I'll be shopping for an upscale smartphone not a stripped-down notebook.

NOTE: I'm not suggesting that anyone replace their iPhone with a Netbook. My point is that a Netbook can be used as an inexpensive adjunct to an iPhone or Droid for people who need to be more productive than an iPhone (or Droid) would allow.

Advanced Micro Devices is not the only large Intel competitor to rail against Intel's alleged strong-arm tactics.

Nvidia has also complained loudly for years about Intel business practices in the graphics chip market, where Intel commands about 50 percent of the market.

Nvidia is the world's leading supplier of "discrete," or standalone, graphics chips but takes a distant second place in overall market share to Intel, which supplies "integrated" graphics built into the chipsets that accompany all of its processors. Mercury Research estimates the total market for graphics chips, including integrated graphics, at almost $10 billion in 2009.

In the third quarter, Intel had 53 percent of the graphics chip market, up from the 49 percent share in the same period last year, according to Jon Peddie Research, which tracks the graphics chip market. Nvidia took about 24 percent, down from the 28 percent in the third quarter of last year.

These figures get even more lopsided for Intel when the market is segmented into integrated graphics only. "Put your seatbelt on. They've got 80 percent of the notebook integrated market," said Jon Peddie, president of Jon Peddie Research. Though this is a much smaller and more segmented market than overall PC processor market, which was at the center of last week's $1.25 billion settlement between Intel and AMD, it still shows the level of Intel's dominance, according to Peddie.

Nvidia claims these latter market share figures reflect Intel's "bundling" tactics--the same carrot-and-stick tactics that AMD has cited for years and that were spelled out in a complaint filed by New York's attorney general earlier this month.

Intel is trying to impede competition on two chipset fronts, according to Nvidia. One front is the burgeoning market for chipsets in Netbooks--tiny, inexpensive laptops that are typically priced around $350. In this market, Nvidia sells its Ion chipset, which competes with Intel's integrated graphics product.

"Intel's tactics with Ion have been the most aggressive we've seen from a competitor. They have offered the Atom [a total of three chips] for $25, but when the one-chip Atom is used with Ion, it sells for $45," Nvidia CEO Jen Hsun Huang said in a statement provided to CNET. "A customer can't even choose to resell the chipset and use Ion instead. What's the point of Nvidia getting an Intel bus license if it's impossible to overcome Intel's pricing bundles?" he asked, referring the licensing fee that Nvidia pays Intel.

"We'll keep growing as a company, but further action needs to be taken to protect consumers," Huang said.

Intel disputes this. "He's playing a trick of numbers, said Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy. "He's giving you a $45 list price--that nobody pays--for a part and then a negotiated price (which is more realistic). He's mixing apples and oranges. We have scrubbed and continue to scrub our pricing practices as it relates to chipsets and processors. It's all above cost. And that meets the legal standard worldwide."

In Netbooks, Nvidia has made some headway this year; its Ion chipset has been used in Netbooks from Hewlett-Packard and Lenovo, among others--and Huang concedes this. But Peddie said Nvidia still faces a formidable challenge. "They're nibbling away it at. But it's a pretty big hill to climb," Peddie said.

In the second front of Nvidia's most hotly-contested feuds with Intel, the former has halted development of chipsets for Intel's new "Nehalem" processor technology (marketed as the Core i series of chips), following a complaint filed by Intel in February--which Nvidia then countered in March. Intel alleged in its motion for a declaratory judgment that the 4-year-old chipset license agreement with Nvidia does not extend to Intel's future-generation processors with "integrated memory controllers," which includes Intel's newest Nehalem Core i processors.

"It's meant to get Nvidia to cease and desist from citing that they have a license," Peddie said. "That's an interesting tactic because if the court rules in favor of keeping Nvidia from saying they have a license, it also creates the burden on the OEMs [PC makers] of not wanting to get in a crossfire between Nvidia and Intel," he said.

Intel again disputes this. "It's not seeking to prevent them from doing anything. For well over a year and including mediation, we argued with Nvidia about their rights under that agreement. And we tried multiple times to reach an agreement. And we could not," Mulloy said. "We asked the court to tell the parties what the agreement means. At the end of that process, we'll work with them and try to figure out what to do next."

Note: Mercury Research numbers were provided by Nvidia.