Comments on: You can put a supercomputer in a pizza box? DARPA wants to talk to you. http://insidehpc.com/2009/06/29/you-can-put-a-supercomputer-in-a-pizza-box-darpa-wants-to-talk-to-you/ HPC news for supercomputing professionals Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:32:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: DARPA calls for petaflops-in-a-rack proposals | insideHPC.com http://insidehpc.com/2009/06/29/you-can-put-a-supercomputer-in-a-pizza-box-darpa-wants-to-talk-to-you/comment-page-1/#comment-211077 DARPA calls for petaflops-in-a-rack proposals | insideHPC.com Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:50:02 +0000 http://insidehpc.com/?p=5843#comment-211077 [...] talked about this back in June of last year when DARPA issued an RFI for its Ubiquitous High Performance Computing program. That RFI was [...] [...] talked about this back in June of last year when DARPA issued an RFI for its Ubiquitous High Performance Computing program. That RFI was [...]

]]> By: Peter http://insidehpc.com/2009/06/29/you-can-put-a-supercomputer-in-a-pizza-box-darpa-wants-to-talk-to-you/comment-page-1/#comment-171335 Peter Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:06:29 +0000 http://insidehpc.com/?p=5843#comment-171335 Your posting included the following RFI: "Develop new technologies and execution models that do not require application programmers to explicitly manage system complexity, in terms of architectural attributes with respect to data locality and concurrency, to achieve their performance and time to solution goals - programmability." The DARPA HPCS program is (was?) funding development of two new HPCS programming languages - one by Cray and one by IBM - with goals that sounded awfully similar to the above. Does this mean DARPA (or the vendors) have given up on these HPCS language projects? Or is DARPA just throwing more tax money at the subject, in the hopes of getting something interesting? Despite any clear evidence that application developers are truly interested in rewriting their applications in any new language? Your posting included the following RFI:

“Develop new technologies and execution models that do not require application programmers to explicitly manage system complexity, in terms of architectural attributes with respect to data locality and concurrency, to achieve their performance and time to solution goals – programmability.”

The DARPA HPCS program is (was?) funding development of two new HPCS programming languages – one by Cray and one by IBM – with goals that sounded awfully similar to the above.

Does this mean DARPA (or the vendors) have given up on these HPCS language projects? Or is DARPA just throwing more tax money at the subject, in the hopes of getting something interesting? Despite any clear evidence that application developers are truly interested in rewriting their applications in any new language?

]]> By: David http://insidehpc.com/2009/06/29/you-can-put-a-supercomputer-in-a-pizza-box-darpa-wants-to-talk-to-you/comment-page-1/#comment-171326 David Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:04:50 +0000 http://insidehpc.com/?p=5843#comment-171326 Isn't that a bit contradictory to note that current systems "deliver only a small fraction of peak" and then specify the goals in terms of theoretical, never-to-be-achieved peak flops per watt. How about specfprate(base) or specintrate(base) per watt? Isn’t that a bit contradictory to note that current systems “deliver only a small fraction of peak” and then specify the goals in terms of theoretical, never-to-be-achieved peak flops per watt. How about specfprate(base) or specintrate(base) per watt?

]]>