Recommendation for an 8 core system
-
We've got several Dell Precision T7400's at work configured with 2x Quad Xeon running @ 3.2GHz. I'd strongly recommend getting the fastest hard disks you can afford as this much CPU power can be bottlenecked easily by slow disks (if that's the nature of your tasks). Don't skimp on memory either, go 64bit and these machine support 32GB of RAM!
Regards, Ray
Ray Hayes wrote:
We've got several Dell Precision T7400's at work configured with 2x Quad Xeon running @ 3.2GHz.
Thanks. I'll pass that along.
Ray Hayes wrote:
I'd strongly recommend getting the fastest hard disks you can afford as this much CPU power can be bottlenecked easily by slow disks (if that's the nature of your tasks). Don't skimp on memory either, go 64bit and these machine support 32GB of RAM!
Disk performance and memory are not issues. Only processor performance. :) Marc
-
With that much computing power, could it be time to check into distributed computing and maybe spread that load a bit? They probably have machines with some available CPU time already.
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: Going to Stanford University for free?
Rocky Moore wrote:
could it be time to check into distributed computing and maybe spread that load a bit?
It's definitely something I'm considering as well. At this point I've modified the code so that the analysis can run in a truly autonomous manner, so it can be easily distributed. Woohoo! Marc
-
Another option that might be worth thinking about is grid computing - that way you can effectively lump existing machines together to pool their processing power. We've been experimenting with the IncrediBuild grid console [^] (xgconsole) for distributing computationally intensive code analysis tasks, and so far it looks very promising. If your task can easily be broken up into independently executing processes, it's definitely worth a shot. :cool:
Anna :rose: Having a bad bug day? Tech Blog | Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote:
If your task can easily be broken up into independently executing processes, it's definitely worth a shot.
It definitely can, now that I've made the necessary code changes. The problem is getting machines available. I could throw 8 cores at it distributed over 4 computers, but I'm not sure my client actually has those resources. I mean, they have thousands of computers, but it's all a very secure environment and each person only has one workstation (the last time I visited, granted, a few years ago). Getting someone in the cubicle next to you to donate their machine (even if only some % of CPU cycles) I think would be difficult. But I'll ask. :) Marc
-
My client would like me to recommend a system that has 8 cores, which I guess would be configured as two processors with quad cores. So I ask the experts here. Why, you may ask? Because we're running very computational intensive analysis on some switch network topologies used in communication satellites. So the quality of your next TV show or Internet connection might depend on the analysis we're performing! mac
Dell PowerEdge 2950. 2 sockets, 2U. Quad-core Xeon in each socket, 8 core server. We have a 1950 (1U) with a single quad-core Xeon that's now very happy, although storage space is an issue (only has two 3.5" drive bays) and the area over the 16GB of RAM is a little warm. In retrospect, not the best choice for our virtual machine host server. The two 2950s, which each have a single dual-core Xeon 5148 (IIRC), are a better size. The 1950 did have to have a new motherboard after a sequence of CPU Bus Parity Errors. Dell support were pretty quick to get this out. Intel have recently announced the Xeon 7400 series which will (on some models) have six cores per physical processor unit. These processors are designed for 4- to 32-socket systems; the PowerEdge takes 5000-series processors. If all-out performance is important you might consider a 4-socket system with dual-core processors, as those are generally clocked higher than the quad-cores.
"Multithreading is just one damn thing after, before, or simultaneous with another." - Andrei Alexandrescu
-
It'll be faster crap.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
So we could scrap the TV and get fruit for equivalence?
He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes. He who does not ask a question remains a fool forever. [Chineese Proverb] Jonathan C Dickinson (C# Software Engineer)
-
I don't know if this is relevant but I've been pretty happy with the Mac Pro I got a few months back. I've got it set up to triple boot between OS X, Windows XP, and Vista. But I'm not sure if that's really what you're looking for, or you want something like a rack based system.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
Vista! Yay! There is nothing like a good blue screen of death on TV these days!!!
He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes. He who does not ask a question remains a fool forever. [Chineese Proverb] Jonathan C Dickinson (C# Software Engineer)
-
My client would like me to recommend a system that has 8 cores, which I guess would be configured as two processors with quad cores. So I ask the experts here. Why, you may ask? Because we're running very computational intensive analysis on some switch network topologies used in communication satellites. So the quality of your next TV show or Internet connection might depend on the analysis we're performing! mac
One more, erm, exotic idea would be to wire up a bunch of CELL based machines (e.g. XBox 360, Playstation 3). At least they have HD support.
He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes. He who does not ask a question remains a fool forever. [Chineese Proverb] Jonathan C Dickinson (C# Software Engineer)
-
Vista! Yay! There is nothing like a good blue screen of death on TV these days!!!
He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes. He who does not ask a question remains a fool forever. [Chineese Proverb] Jonathan C Dickinson (C# Software Engineer)
Jonathan C Dickinson wrote:
Vista! Yay! There is nothing like a good blue screen of death on TV these days!!!
I still see BSoD on XP monthly, I haven't on Vista in ages now. It all depends on what you do, and if you avoid updating. SP1 fixed most of the problems, not that people cared.... most of the BSoD complaints I hear are repeated from RC1 and RC2. :)
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
-
Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote:
If your task can easily be broken up into independently executing processes, it's definitely worth a shot.
It definitely can, now that I've made the necessary code changes. The problem is getting machines available. I could throw 8 cores at it distributed over 4 computers, but I'm not sure my client actually has those resources. I mean, they have thousands of computers, but it's all a very secure environment and each person only has one workstation (the last time I visited, granted, a few years ago). Getting someone in the cubicle next to you to donate their machine (even if only some % of CPU cycles) I think would be difficult. But I'll ask. :) Marc
Sounds like a plan. If all else fails, two or three new quad core machines are also likely to be cheaper to procure than a single 8 core system. Personally, when you can buy a 16 core system for £300 (the current UK price point for low-end quads) I'll be interested again....until then dual core machines are OK, and quads nothing to get excited about. :rolleyes:
Anna :rose: Having a bad bug day? Tech Blog | Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
-
Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote:
If your task can easily be broken up into independently executing processes, it's definitely worth a shot.
It definitely can, now that I've made the necessary code changes. The problem is getting machines available. I could throw 8 cores at it distributed over 4 computers, but I'm not sure my client actually has those resources. I mean, they have thousands of computers, but it's all a very secure environment and each person only has one workstation (the last time I visited, granted, a few years ago). Getting someone in the cubicle next to you to donate their machine (even if only some % of CPU cycles) I think would be difficult. But I'll ask. :) Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
Getting someone in the cubicle next to you to donate their machine (even if only some % of CPU cycles)
Well, if they have thousands of computers, there surely will be a few of them idle to use the CPU time. If you added in the ability to only use machines that are under a certain level of CPU load, users would probably never know there machine was used. For example, you could distribute the load over the machines at say 25% CPU load. If they have thousands abailable, they could have supercomputer power available with hardware they already have. Of course, it is easier to just by an exapensive system and let it do the work if there will never be a need for something more powerful.
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: Going to Stanford University for free?
-
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
Since all such discussions will eventually mention it let me be the first, have you consider a cray?
Heh. Well, there is a budget! Marc
Have you considered a cloud model, with many low-cost machines? At least that could be expanded at lower cost, and the number of processors would not be limited. Gigabit Ethernet plus Core2 Quad machines as the standard cloud component might cinch the deal...also, technologies like Crossfire allow up to 8 GPUs on a bus to act in concert (though significant software challenges exist with this approach)...the off-the-shelf answer is a box with two Intel quad-core Xeons (which, coincidentally, the newest Cray box contains, if I remember the announcement correctly).
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Desktop would be preferable. This isn't really for a server, rather a high powered number crunching workstation.
Did you consider Tesla[^] or reject it for the difficulties of programming?
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
El Corazon wrote:
Marc Clifton wrote: Desktop would be preferable. This isn't really for a server, rather a high powered number crunching workstation. Did you consider Tesla[^] or reject it for the difficulties of programming?
I'd forgotten about this one! But does it run Windows? LOL who cares, as long as it runs!
-
El Corazon wrote:
Marc Clifton wrote: Desktop would be preferable. This isn't really for a server, rather a high powered number crunching workstation. Did you consider Tesla[^] or reject it for the difficulties of programming?
I'd forgotten about this one! But does it run Windows? LOL who cares, as long as it runs!
I don't remember seeing CUDA for anything other than Windows. Although as long as the CUDA integration is done OS is less relavant. still I think it is still only Windows.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
-
I don't remember seeing CUDA for anything other than Windows. Although as long as the CUDA integration is done OS is less relavant. still I think it is still only Windows.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
El Corazon wrote:
I don't remember seeing CUDA for anything other than Windows. Although as long as the CUDA integration is done OS is less relavant. still I think it is still only Windows
The CUDA site at NVIDIA lists XP (32 and 64), Vista (32 and 64), Linux (32 and 64), and Mac OS as target systems Download CUDA[^]
-
El Corazon wrote:
I don't remember seeing CUDA for anything other than Windows. Although as long as the CUDA integration is done OS is less relavant. still I think it is still only Windows
The CUDA site at NVIDIA lists XP (32 and 64), Vista (32 and 64), Linux (32 and 64), and Mac OS as target systems Download CUDA[^]
then it is largely os agnostic. it integrates at the compiler/project level C for CUDA and C++ for main compiler.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
-
then it is largely os agnostic. it integrates at the compiler/project level C for CUDA and C++ for main compiler.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
As usual, you strike at "the heart" of the matter ;-)
-
As usual, you strike at "the heart" of the matter ;-)
at least my brother Sin Corazon isn't here!
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."