Comments on: Opinion: The Violent Waters of HPC http://insidehpc.com/2011/09/12/opinion-the-violent-waters-of-hpc/ HPC News Without the Noise for Supercomputing Professionals | insideHPC Sun, 09 Jun 2013 01:54:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: Jim http://insidehpc.com/2011/09/12/opinion-the-violent-waters-of-hpc/#comment-370662 Jim Tue, 13 Sep 2011 01:19:41 +0000 http://insidehpc.com/?p=23008#comment-370662 The highest levels at NSF signed off on IBM's proposal, so it wasn't just NCSA. The cost to develop the platform was already paid for by DARPA and the hardware was shipping, so any "research" was already sunk costs. IBM just decided at the last minute not to deliver. The highest levels at NSF signed off on IBM’s proposal, so it wasn’t just NCSA. The cost to develop the platform was already paid for by DARPA and the hardware was shipping, so any “research” was already sunk costs. IBM just decided at the last minute not to deliver.

]]> By: Pete http://insidehpc.com/2011/09/12/opinion-the-violent-waters-of-hpc/#comment-370608 Pete Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:12:58 +0000 http://insidehpc.com/?p=23008#comment-370608 “you’re tell us how ..” was supposed to be "you're telling us how..." “you’re tell us how ..” was supposed to be “you’re telling us how…”

]]> By: Pete http://insidehpc.com/2011/09/12/opinion-the-violent-waters-of-hpc/#comment-370607 Pete Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:11:18 +0000 http://insidehpc.com/?p=23008#comment-370607 I very much agree with your "price for failure" comment. When you say "you're tell us how .." -- I assume you are referring to the publication here - insideHPC. But insideHPC is just reporting the news - that a bunch of other sites have picked up as well. The publication is just the messenger. But, I do agree also with your comments about the irony of this situation - even though one system was based on the Power 7 and the other being talked about is based on Blue Gene/Q - two very different architectures - it still seems utterly ridiculous that IBM can cancel one program to hit 20 PFLOPS - and in almost the same breath - announce how they are going to build one to reach 100 PFLOPS. I very much agree with your “price for failure” comment. When you say “you’re tell us how ..” — I assume you are referring to the publication here – insideHPC. But insideHPC is just reporting the news – that a bunch of other sites have picked up as well. The publication is just the messenger. But, I do agree also with your comments about the irony of this situation – even though one system was based on the Power 7 and the other being talked about is based on Blue Gene/Q – two very different architectures – it still seems utterly ridiculous that IBM can cancel one program to hit 20 PFLOPS – and in almost the same breath – announce how they are going to build one to reach 100 PFLOPS.

]]> By: tom_smith http://insidehpc.com/2011/09/12/opinion-the-violent-waters-of-hpc/#comment-370592 tom_smith Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:13:31 +0000 http://insidehpc.com/?p=23008#comment-370592 I find no end in irony in that this report faults IBM and NCSA/NSF for the failure of BlueWaters while the a story on to this web site reads.... "IBM Patents Reveal Plans for 100 Petaflop Blue Gene/Q Super" If I am a major customer, do I care, can I trust IBM with a major HPC installation? They woefully took the BlueWaters project bid it and didn't understand the full ramifications to what they had bid for the money offered. Meantime your telling us how they are going to build 100 PF systems>? On the customer side, NCSA obviously didn't understand the limits of what they had, budget wise, vs. what they were asking for. If I was in charge of this mess; NCSA would have their funding pulled back, someone else could use the money more wisely, and IBM wouldn't get any Government HPC contracts for at least 12 calendar months. There should be a price for failure at this level, but I am not seeing either NCSA or IBM paying that price, why is that? So contrary to what is stated in the report I don't see any implications being imposed on either NCSA or IBM, that is the real story here. I find no end in irony in that this report faults IBM and NCSA/NSF for the failure
of BlueWaters while the a story on to this web site reads….

“IBM Patents Reveal Plans for 100 Petaflop Blue Gene/Q Super”

If I am a major customer, do I care, can I trust IBM with a major HPC installation?
They woefully took the BlueWaters project bid it and didn’t understand the full
ramifications to what they had bid for the money offered. Meantime your telling
us how they are going to build 100 PF systems>?

On the customer side, NCSA obviously didn’t understand the limits of what they
had, budget wise, vs. what they were asking for.

If I was in charge of this mess; NCSA would have their funding pulled back,
someone else could use the money more wisely, and IBM wouldn’t get any
Government HPC contracts for at least 12 calendar months. There should be
a price for failure at this level, but I am not seeing either NCSA or IBM paying
that price, why is that? So contrary to what is stated in the report I don’t see
any implications being imposed on either NCSA or IBM, that is the real
story here.

]]>