[Beowulf] Win64 Clusters!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Robert G. Brown]

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Bill Bryce wrote:

> So this change effectively ties Microsoft MPI to only Microsoft Windows
> platforms, and the security changes are closed source.  Not all of
> Microsoft's partners like MS MPI - when HP ships Microsoft CCS they
> remove MS MPI and put in HP MPI - which probably just adds to confusion
> on the end user side.

Security changes?  To MPI itself?  This puts them into a somewhat grey
area with regard to the GPL, doesn't it... that viral thing.

I'm sure that they can manage the remote job launch any way that they
like, but doesn't that leave the MPI CODE still portable?

It isn't completely crazy that the US government would intervene here if
they broke MPI portability.  After all, MPI exists at all primarily
because of direct government intervention (unlike PVM, which exists
because some Very Bright People conceived it and invented it and made it
fly).

Still, nothing the Borg Empire does in this regard would surprise me.

     rgb

>
> Regards,
>
> Bill.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: beowulf-bounces at beowulf.org [mailto:beowulf-bounces at beowulf.org]
> On Behalf Of Robert G. Brown
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 8:22 PM
> To: Tom Mitchell
> Cc: beowulf at beowulf.org
> Subject: Re: [Beowulf] Win64 Clusters!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Tom Mitchell wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 02:02:53PM +0500, amjad ali wrote:
>>> Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:02:53 +0500
>>> From: "amjad ali" <amjad11 at gmail.com>
>>> To: beowulf at beowulf.org
>>> Subject: [Beowulf] Win64 Clusters!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Would any of you please like to share usage-experience/views/comments
>>> about Windows Compute Cluster Server 2003 based Beowulf Clusters?
>>>
>>> What in your opinion is the future of such clusters?
>>>
>>> How you compare these with the LINUX CLUSTERS?
>>
>> With full consideration to "fat, soft pretzels with
>> cheezy-mustard sauce or rolled in asiago parmesan and garlic."
>>
>> MS pulled a version of mpich/mvapich/MPI and ported it to windows.
>> They also developed some library code to gateway some *inx
> library/system
>> calls to windows.  The root sources of MPI are public and not GPL so
> they can.
>>
>> It might be worth looking at the MS announcement -- but why
>> bother.  If you look you might think that common MPI codes
>> would just compile and run...  I have no idea I expect some will
>> and there begins silly porting for the next...
>
> Sure.  MS did this, no doubt.  And as you note below, no sooner do they
> get it in when they begin the borgification of MPI, just as they've
> borgified java, c, c++, and anything in the Universe they can sucker
> somebody into buying in borgified form.
>
> Borgifying MPI is the most humorous thing in the Universe, BTW, given
> its historical origins -- it was basically a language written
> (reluctantly!) by supercomputer vendors when the US government got tired
> of paying for all their important codes to be ported to each new
> generation of proprietary hardware with its proprietary low level calls.
> MS is doubtless trying to figure out just how much of that they can
> undo while building up a big enough market share and enough vendors of
> closed source applications written with their borgisms that they can...
>
> Oh wait.  It IS GPL.  Do you think that they actually read it?
>
> However, I was really referring to the other aspects of program
> development and performance tuning associated with using a closed source
> development environment.
>
> Resistance is Futile.
>
>     rgb
>
>>
>> Once a set of boxes are interconnected and you have library
>> support for MPI or another way to share data (PVM... whatever)
>> you are off and running in the clustering world.   Sadly MS
>> has a MS specific library that abuses "standard MPI" and could
>> quickly cause source code to surface that runs correctly or on a
>> MS cluster but not on another OS based cluster (Linux, Solaris,
>> Irix, AIX).   I see this all the time with java script, and c,
>> c++, and other codes where little 'features' hook you in.
>>
>> Some will be fooled into thinking that this is something to look at
>> or worse something to spend money on.
>>
>> SUMMARY:
>> Since you posted this on 1 Apr 2007 all I can do is giggle
>> and wonder why I replied.
>>
>> Regards,
>> mitch
>>
>> PS: Ask in a year but not on April fools/joke day.
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Robert G. Brown	                       http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/
Duke University Dept. of Physics, Box 90305
Durham, N.C. 27708-0305
Phone: 1-919-660-2567  Fax: 919-660-2525     email:rgb at phy.duke.edu