Live data from Hacker News

AWS doesn't make sense for scientific computing

noahlebovic.com

201–210 of 281 posts

Re: AWS doesn't make sense for scientific computing

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember the first time a server caught fire in the closet we kept the rack in. Backups were kept on a server right below the one on fire. But, y'know, we saved money.

This is my fear about my homelab lol Fire extinguisher nearby, smart temp sensors, but still...

No more or less chance that really anything else connected to power to catch on fire. Just make sure RCD works.

Hell, some weeks ago my oven decided the lower heater's line is now connected to ground and blows fuses...

Our 8 racks in DC only had single event of something blowing (power supply) and aside of smell and fuse blowing nothing really happened

Servers are essentially metal boxes with a bit of glass-reinforced epoxy and some plastic inside so there is limited amount of stuff that can burn. UPS is probably bigger problem

For example the OVH datacenter fire was more of "stuff around servers was flammable" (they had wooden ceilings for some reason...) rather than "just" servers.

Re: AWS doesn't make sense for scientific computing

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am dealing with the exact opposite problem: "Oh you mean, we should leave the EC2 instance running 24/7 ??? No way, that would be too expensive"... to which I need to respond "No, it would be like $15/month. Trivial, stop worrying about costs in EC2 and S3, we're like 7 people here with 3 GB of data." I deal with Scientists that think AWS is some sort of a massively expensive enterprise thing. I can be, but not for…

> think AWS is some sort of a massively expensive enterprise thing Compared to using dedicated instances with way cheaper bandwidth, storage and compute power, it might as well be. Cloud makes sense when you have to scale up/down very quickly, or you'd be losing money fast. But most don't suffer from this problem.

At $15/month, it would take longer than a typical school year to beat.

Re: AWS doesn't make sense for scientific computing

#203

Having had the responsibility of providing HPC for a literal buildings full of scientists, I can say that it may be true that you can get computation cheaper with owned hardware, than in a cloud. Certainly pay as you go, individual project at a time processing will look that way to the scientist. But I can also say with confidence that the contest is far closer than they think. Scientists who make this argument almos…

I'd much rather store HIPAA data on a server in my office or closet than worry I got all the IAM settings right. And if I fire someone, security makes sure they can't get in the building. You cannot say the same about the cloud. Yes, I know you can do cloud security right, but on prem security is just harder to mess up.

Re: AWS doesn't make sense for scientific computing

#204
post #134
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can think of a few ways to abuse it while still spinning it as "for research". The obvious one is to buy a $9999 gaming machine with several of whatever the fanciest GPU on the market is at the time, and say you're doing machine learning. So my guess is it's an overly broad patch for that sort of thing.

Not really - this is also true for things with no particular "civilian" use.

Yes, that's why I described it as "overly broad".

Re: AWS doesn't make sense for scientific computing

#205
post #32

Having had the responsibility of providing HPC for a literal buildings full of scientists, I can say that it may be true that you can get computation cheaper with owned hardware, than in a cloud. Certainly pay as you go, individual project at a time processing will look that way to the scientist. But I can also say with confidence that the contest is far closer than they think. Scientists who make this argument almos…

Let me echo this as someone who once was responsible for HPC computing in a research intensive public university. Most career academics have NO IDEA how much enterprise computing infrastructure costs. If a 1 terabyte USB hard drive is $40 at Costco we (university IT) must be getting a much better deal than that. Take this argument and apply it to any aspect of HPC computing and that's what you're fighting against. Th…

I cannot wait for Ampere servers to become widespread. Most of the power and cooling issues will go away.

Re: AWS doesn't make sense for scientific computing

#207
post #23

Furthermore, scientific computing often (usually?) involves trainees. It can difficult to train people when small mistakes can have five figure bills.

I agree that this is a big thing to consider here too. I set up a computing cluster in grad school and it was much less costly to make a mistake there than it would have been in a cloud service. Re-running something only wasted wall time and not any money. That said, money is not the only scarce resource here. Researchers can get allocations at university and government HPC systems, but you then have to be quite careful with your allocation of computing time. I remember keeping track of the number of SUs (core-hours) I was burning quite carefully when I used university clusters, since once it is gone, you might not get any more time.

Re: AWS doesn't make sense for scientific computing

#208
post #204
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really - this is also true for things with no particular "civilian" use.

Yes, that's why I described it as "overly broad".

But it's also not why the law was made.

There are other regulations to keep people from installing Steam on their ML workstations (which also cover machines below the threshold).

It's entirely about one grant-giving entity not wanting to pay for a piece of capital equipment that will have use beyond the project they're funding. It's a federal regulation, and it comes up far more commonly with lab equipment than it ever does with computers.

Re: AWS doesn't make sense for scientific computing

#209
post #146

What does the landscape look like now for "terraform for bare metal"?. Is ansible/chef still the main name in town? I just wanna netboot some lightweight image, set up some basic network discovery on a control plane, and turn every connected box into a flexible worker bee I can deploy whatever cluster control layer (k8s/nomad) on top of and start slinging containers.

I really like this description of how baremetal infrastructure should work, and this is where I think (shameless self promotion) Triton DataCenter[1] plays really well today on-prem. PXE booted lightweight compute nodes with a robust API, including operator portal, user portal, and cli. Keep an eye out for the work we are doing with Triton Linux + K8s. Very lightweight Triton Linux compute node + baremetal k8s deploy…

Thanks! This is pretty sleek! I'm going to have to dust off my homelab and play around with this.

What is the stack written in? Looks like a lot of javascript and makefiles from the github side of things but idk if that's the whole kit and caboodle.

Re: AWS doesn't make sense for scientific computing

#210
I've just spent the last week investigating cloud compute options for a lab that needs to run bioinformatics / genomics algorithms.

First off, the pricing in the article is so disingenuous as to be outright deception.

Here is the Spot price for Azure HB120rs_v2, a popular HPC size with 120 AMD EPYC cores and 456 GB of RAM: https://azureprice.net/vm/Standard_HB120rs_v2?tier=spot&curr...

This is less than $300/month for 2.5x the compute capacity he's referencing! The author's estimate is $200/month for an on-prem server with just 48 cores. Scaled down to that level, the equivalent in cloud spot pricing would be $120.

That's assuming on-prem is 100% utilised and the cloud compute is not auto-scaled. If those assumptions are lifted, the cloud is much cheaper.

The cloud makes sense in several other ways also:

- Once the data is in cloud storage like S3 or Azure Storage Accounts, sharing it with government departments, universities, or other research institutes is trivial. Just send them a SAS URL and they can probably download it at 1GB/s without killing the Internet link at the source.

- Many of these processes have 10 GB inputs that produce about 1 TB of output due to all the intermediate and temporary files. These are often kept for later analysis, but they're of low value and go cold very quickly. Tiered storage in the cloud is very easy to set up and dirt cheap compared to on-prem network attached storage. These blobs can be moved to "Cold" storage within a few days, and then to "Archive" within a month or two at most.

- The algorithms improve over time, at which point it would be oh-so-nice to be able to re-run them over the old multi-petabyte data sets. But on-prem, this is an extravagance, and needs a lot of justification. In the cloud, you can just spin up a large pool of Spot instances with a low price cap, and let it chunk through the old data when it can. Unlike on-prem, this can read the old data in much faster, easily up to 30-100 Gbps in my tests. Good luck building a disk array that can stream 100 Gbps and also have good performance for high-priority workloads!

- The hardware is evolving much more rapidly than typical enterprise purchase cycles. We have a customer that is about to buy one (1) NVIDIA A100 GPU to use for bioinformatics. In a matter of months, it'll be superseded by the NVIDIA "Hopper" H100 series, which is 7x faster for the same genomics codes. In the cloud, both AWS and Azure will soon have instances with four H100 cards in them. That'll be 28 times faster than one A100 card, making the on-prem purchase obsolete years before the warranty runs out. A couple of years later when then successor to H100 is available in the cloud, these guys will still be using the A100!

- The cloud provides lots of peripheral services that are a PitA to set up, secure, and manage locally. For example, EKS or AKS are managed Kubernetes clusters that can be used to efficiently bin-pack HPC compute jobs and restart jobs on Spot instances if they're deallocated. Similarly, Azure CycleCloud provides managed Slurm clusters with auto-scale and spot pricing. For Docker workloads there are managed container registries, and both single-instance and scalable "container apps" that work quite well for one-off batch jobs, Jupyter notebooks, and the like.

- In the cloud, it's easy to temporarily spin up a true HPC cluster with 200 Gbps Infiniband and a matching high-performance storage cache. It's like a tiny supercomputer, rented by the hour. On-prem, just buying a single Infiniband switch will set you back more than $30K, and it'll be just the chassis. No cables, SFPs, or host adapters. A full setup is north of $100K. Good luck buying "cheap" storage that can keep up with that network!

Etc, etc...

Post reply on HN