Get Smart about Business Spending
- Related Stories
-
Gates touts Microsoft's supercomputing move
November 15, 2005 -
Windows for supercomputers likely out by fall
March 3, 2005 -
New clusters emerge at supercomputing show
November 8, 2004 -
Microsoft confirms supercomputing plans
June 23, 2004 -
Microsoft creating Windows for supercomputers
May 24, 2004
The software maker said Friday that it has finalized the code for Windows Compute Cluster Server 2003, which is designed to allow multiple servers to work together to handle high-performance computing (HPC) tasks. Such work, long handled by systems from SGI and Cray, has increasingly been tackled by Linux clusters, though Microsoft has been planning its entry for some time.
CNET News.com first reported in May 2004 that Microsoft was developing such a version of Windows. A month later, the company confirmed its plans.
"This is a long-term investment for Microsoft," Kyril Faenov, director of High Performance Computing at Microsoft, said in a telephone interview. "We think we can make an impact."
The company had originally hoped to have the software ready last fall, but opted to spend more time testing the product. Now Microsoft says it is ready, noting that some early customers, including Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems and Cornell University's biology department are already using the software. Dell, Hewlett-Packard and IBM are among the computer makers that are planning to sell clusters using Microsoft's software.
Microsoft hopes that, though late to the cluster computing game, it can enter just as such tasks become more common and move beyond academic and research areas into large businesses.
"We think technical computing is an area that is undergoing a tremendous transition," Faenov said.
The Compute Cluster software--which is based on the Windows Server 2003 operating system, hence the somewhat outdated name--will be made available for evaluation next week. Customers, however, won't be able to buy the software until August, slightly behind the company's latest goal, which was to ship the software sometime in the first half of the year.
Basically, the company is hoping to do for the cluster market what it did in the server market. There, Microsoft bolstered Windows just in time to capitalize on the shift away from proprietary Unix servers, with the server unit having been a strong spot for the company's financial performance in recent years.
Microsoft is also pushing the idea of "personal supercomputing"--the idea that individual researchers, business analysts and engineers can benefit from harnessing the power of multiple computers. Hardware makers Ciara Technologies and Tyan Computer are among the companies aiming to sell such individual clusters.
The Compute Cluster software will sell for an estimated $469 per node, less than the company's standard server OS price. The cost of Windows Server varies based on the version of the operating system, but the standard edition with the ability to connect to five computers has a suggested price of $999.
"The price is less than standard Windows Server," Faenov said. "We got feedback that that is an attractive price."
The software is also among the first products from Microsoft that will run only on machines that have 64-bit processors, though it can still run 32-bit software. The next version of Exchange will also be 64-bit only, Microsoft has said.
Faenov said he is encouraged by the amount of HPC-related software already developed for Windows, including programs from MathWorks, Ansys and The BioTeam. Next, Faenov said he hopes to see Microsoft expand into the electronic design automation area, talking to folks like Mentor Graphics and Synopsys. He also sees the possibility for new areas, such as graphic design companies, to make clustered computing a part of their infrastructure.
"I would love to see media applications--Adobe Photoshop or InDesign--to be able to take advantage of clusters in every design shop out there," Faenov said.
See more CNET content tagged:
electronic design automation, supercomputing, high-performance computing, Microsoft Windows Server, supercomputer
tekthots.blogspot.com
tekthots.blogspot.com
frequently?
Especially one that nearly impossible to fix, even by its creators,
when it goest south?
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,19345228%
5E15865%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html
frequently?
Especially one that nearly impossible to fix, even by its creators,
when it goest south?
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,19345228%
5E15865%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html
If you look at the feature set of MS cluster product, it still doesn't approximate the rich environment provided elsewhere. Perhaps they believe that markets not already familiar with cluster computing will be more ready to accept MS' products, but I suspect those companies would likely hire experienced people and use proven technology -- and that means not Microsoft.
This is a waste of money for MS that should be poured into QA for their other products.
But if they did that, they would have to actually DO the QA.
:)
If you look at the feature set of MS cluster product, it still doesn't approximate the rich environment provided elsewhere. Perhaps they believe that markets not already familiar with cluster computing will be more ready to accept MS' products, but I suspect those companies would likely hire experienced people and use proven technology -- and that means not Microsoft.
This is a waste of money for MS that should be poured into QA for their other products.
But if they did that, they would have to actually DO the QA.
:)
2003 Is a product line, this is just an update to an existing OS. You don't call Windows 98 SE "Windows 99" do you?
Though as with some of the other posters, I wonder how much headway they can really make in this market.
2003 Is a product line, this is just an update to an existing OS. You don't call Windows 98 SE "Windows 99" do you?
Though as with some of the other posters, I wonder how much headway they can really make in this market.
You only need the GUI on the cluster controller.
All the other computers should be running just the slave OS with a command line interface, since you'll rarely need to configure it outside the network.
Aside from licensing costs, another reason Linux and Unixes reign supreme over the cluster computing market is their modularity. The slaves in the cluster run little more than the kernel and processes required by the purpose. And these processes can be dropped in and out by the cluster controller.
Only on the controller is there a GUI, if at all.
If each computer in a cluster has to support the overhead of a GUI and a whole bunch of "built-into" Windows processes (windows media player and Internet Explorer, for example), the processing power sapped will mean more computers needed in the cluster, with corresponding penalties in terms of overhead and power consumption.
Here's an idea for Microsoft, as radical as it seems. Build a utility into Windows Server to control a Linux cluster.
Wait, you're already doing that in your Linux Lab. Perhaps you should consider marketing that instead?
You only need the GUI on the cluster controller.
All the other computers should be running just the slave OS with a command line interface, since you'll rarely need to configure it outside the network.
Aside from licensing costs, another reason Linux and Unixes reign supreme over the cluster computing market is their modularity. The slaves in the cluster run little more than the kernel and processes required by the purpose. And these processes can be dropped in and out by the cluster controller.
Only on the controller is there a GUI, if at all.
If each computer in a cluster has to support the overhead of a GUI and a whole bunch of "built-into" Windows processes (windows media player and Internet Explorer, for example), the processing power sapped will mean more computers needed in the cluster, with corresponding penalties in terms of overhead and power consumption.
Here's an idea for Microsoft, as radical as it seems. Build a utility into Windows Server to control a Linux cluster.
Wait, you're already doing that in your Linux Lab. Perhaps you should consider marketing that instead?
feature for the past two years.
It works great, even on small clusters and is great for video
rendering, etc.
DJO
feature for the past two years.
It works great, even on small clusters and is great for video
rendering, etc.
DJO
Apple's stunning contribution to the High Performance
Computing arena. One wonders why.
With supercomputer installations at nationally known
institutions such as Virginia Tech (10th fasted computer in the
word), the US Naval Research Medical Center, University of
Pittsburgh Genetics Center, and the humongous 25+ teraflop
cluster that the US Army uses to test hypersonic flight, it's no
wonder why, once again, Apple's accomplishments are
minimized by the Microsoft crowd.
To see what is available NOW (versus vaporware from MS) go
here - http://www.apple.com/xserve/cluster/
;-)
Apple's stunning contribution to the High Performance
Computing arena. One wonders why.
With supercomputer installations at nationally known
institutions such as Virginia Tech (10th fasted computer in the
word), the US Naval Research Medical Center, University of
Pittsburgh Genetics Center, and the humongous 25+ teraflop
cluster that the US Army uses to test hypersonic flight, it's no
wonder why, once again, Apple's accomplishments are
minimized by the Microsoft crowd.
To see what is available NOW (versus vaporware from MS) go
here - http://www.apple.com/xserve/cluster/
;-)
It may even be useful for those looking to build an inexpensive cluster which still is able to run certain Windows apps.
cluster windows 600$ish per machine
Linux 0$ per machine
cluster windows using 70% of the cpu to move it's own mass and 30% of the machine to actually do something
linux using 70%+ of the cpu to do actual work.
We'll see though. Never underestimate the board of director's fear of the unknown. Everybody recognizes the Microsoft brand but only the IT managers realize how much better the other options are.
- Agree
- by Vackraste June 10, 2006 11:36 AM PDT
- I tend to agree with your comments. Still, MS have money to invest i different areas and we're not the one to stop them other than with technical excellence.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- linux is still free
- by jabbotts June 12, 2006 12:38 PM PDT
- A Linux cluster with Wine would probably run windows better but the real argument is simply:
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (38 Comments)It may even be useful for those looking to build an inexpensive cluster which still is able to run certain Windows apps.
cluster windows 600$ish per machine
Linux 0$ per machine
cluster windows using 70% of the cpu to move it's own mass and 30% of the machine to actually do something
linux using 70%+ of the cpu to do actual work.
We'll see though. Never underestimate the board of director's fear of the unknown. Everybody recognizes the Microsoft brand but only the IT managers realize how much better the other options are.