Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 206 posts

Re: All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux

#161

Post by jabl »

deathtrader666 wrote: post #150

How does one go about learning more on this topic -- being a Linux admin for a supercomputer?

I don't think there's a degree for supercomputer admin, it's mostly on the job training. And to be fair, a lot of it is similar to generic Linux sysadmin stuff. Especially so nowadays with the focus on devops/infrastructure-as-code/etc., or generally the idea of how to administer many nodes in a scalable fashion.

If you want to play around, go to http://openhpc.community/ , fire up a few virtual machines, follow the installation instructions, and start playing around.

Re: All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux

#162

Post by microcolonel »

krylon wrote: post #160

I vaguely remember that Microsoft offered version of Windows Server for HPC environments at one point. Are the reasons for not using Windows purely financial (in a cluster with thousands of nodes the licensing costs can become substantial) or are there technical reasons as well?

I doubt licensing costs have much to do with it, it seems like flexibility would be the driving factor. Supercomputing centers, vendors, institutions which use supercomputers, etc. all frequently modify and contribute modifications to the Linux kernel and associated userland. You have to imagine they are making changes which Microsoft could not afford to care much about, nor turn around in competitive time.

Re: All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux

#163

Post by krylon »

microcolonel wrote: post #162
krylon wrote: post #160

I vaguely remember that Microsoft offered version of Windows Server for HPC environments at one point. Are the reasons for not using Windows purely financial (in a cluster with thousands of nodes the licensing costs can become substantial) or are there technical reasons as well?

I doubt licensing costs have much to do with it, it seems like flexibility would be the driving factor. Supercomputing centers, vendors, institutions which use supercomputers, etc. all frequently modify and contribute modifications to the Linux kernel and associated userland. You have to imagine they are making changes which Microsoft could not afford to care much about, nor turn around in competitive time.

That makes sense. Thank you!

Re: All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux

#164

Post by kbart »

ForFreedom wrote: post #151

These linux OS are customized, compiled and not out of the box, correct?

More correct title would be "All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux kernel". Of course nobody uses off-the-shelve Ubuntu (or another distro) to power supercomputer. I'm not an expert, but I bet that it's heavily modified Linux kernel with custom userspace optimized for a given task in mind (scientific calculations, simulations etc.)

Re: All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux

#165

Post by golergka »

zanny wrote: post #21
b_emery wrote: post #4

A win for open source. I was just thinking the other day that it's a shame that Linus is not a billionaire. Seems he's doing just fine however: "Finnish-American software engineer and hacker Linus Torvalds has as estimated net worth of $150 million and an estimated annual salary of $10 million. He earned his net worth as the principal force behind the development of the Linux kernel." Source: https://www.therichest.c…

I don't think its so much a shame that Linus isn't a billionaire than it is we have billionaires at all. There is limited rational or ethical reason for one human being to accumulate so much centralized wealth. There is being rewarded for hard work / skill / innovation and there is exploiting people to become rich, and the line between those is very hard to distinguish when talking about individuals making more than…

Your reasoning seems to be coming from an assumption that there should be an underlying ethical reason for this; that there is, in fact, some common ethical ground that could possibly be enforced on all of humanity for the greater good.

But why do you think that such an assumption could be even remotely true?

Re: All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux

#166

Post by ajuc »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #122
foxylad wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yes, there are ethical reasons to accumulate so many resources: because some problems are incredibly hard to solve and need a lot of resources to even start to solve. Allowing people to become billionaires is a hideously inefficient way to solve hard problems. Most billionaires hoard their wealth, or spend it on the hard problem of ostentatious display of wealth. Billionaires who solve hard problems: Bill Gates and…

> Allowing One word in, and already the same inverted burden of proof problem as the comment I replied to. > people to become billionaires is a hideously inefficient way to solve hard problems It's a good thing that's not the reason, nor is any reason required, and that's not your choice to make. And, also critically important: it's a great way to solve specific hard problems that aren't the ones most people are focu…

Taxes are state allowing you to keep X% of your earnings. Apparently they don't need a proof that they can do that.

Re: All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux

#167

Post by userpass »

tw04 wrote: post #129
dingo_bat wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me $150 million is not much different from $1 billion. Maybe that just indicates I'm poor :)

It indicates you don't have the disease that is collecting money for the sake of collecting money. You can absolutely SPEND $1 billion. There's no way you can ever APPRECIATE that money.

I have this disease and I'm not even earning six figures.

Re: All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux

#168

Post by lucozade »

dgut wrote: post #119
lucozade wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an interesting position. What you’re effectively saying is, if you’re stupid enough to invest in a scam then you should be allowed to. The establishment shouldn’t put barriers in your way if you want to give your money to a hoax. There’s something to be said for that. If you’re not capable of managing your own money then maybe the con artist will do better? Personally, I’d prefer to give to a charity with a de…

That's some of the most short-sighted comment I've read on HN. As somebody else here points out, there are a ton of unhealthy activities (I can think of a thousand) that are not only legal but well advertised. In fact, the current US president owns one of those great places where people can flush their money down the toilet. You are fundamentally saying all ICOs are a scam, otherwise your comment doesn't make much se…

I'm not saying all ICOs are scams. I doubt that they are. But I don't know. Nor do you. Nor does anyone.

And I'd like the ICO industry to die. Quietly. In its sleep if possible, not with all guns blazing.

Why? Because the Satoshi network is one of the most important societal developments of the last 20 years (if not longer). It's important because it made more progress in the field of trust than we've made since, I don't know, the Templars probably.

And what do we do with that gem? ICOs. ICOs, whose trust model consists of anonymous people asking for money with vague promises about a non-existent future. It's a travesty. It's like drawing a smiley face on The Scream. Das is nicht einmal falsch.

And you're right. It's not worse than opioids or gambling. But really, is that the bar? Shouldn't we be building on the progress rather than pissing on it? Wouldn't it be better if we were working on the trust problem for exchanges? On the oligarchy problem of mining pools? Taking the flaws in the current network and fixing them?

So yes. I'd like the SEC to step in. Maybe the old guard can help the rotten branch wither so the tree can flourish. I hope.

If you want another cesspit, can't you dig it somewhere else?

Re: All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux

#169

Post by ramblerman »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #106
zanny wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think its so much a shame that Linus isn't a billionaire than it is we have billionaires at all. There is limited rational or ethical reason for one human being to accumulate so much centralized wealth. There is being rewarded for hard work / skill / innovation and there is exploiting people to become rich, and the line between those is very hard to distinguish when talking about individuals making more than…

> There is limited rational or ethical reason for one human being to accumulate so much centralized wealth First: yes, there are ethical reasons to accumulate so many resources : because some problems are incredibly hard to solve and need a lot of resources to even start to solve. Second, it is not on the people who have earned something to prove why they should be "permitted" to keep it; it's on the people who belie…

> It's a shame that there exist people with nothing. The former doesn't need fixing; the latter absolutely does.

I'm not sure if you are being facetious or you generally don't see the link here.

Re: All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux

#170

Post by amelius »

droidist2 wrote: post #90
amelius wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you weren't born yet?

Tough luck, roll the dice and hope you land on Community Chest or Free Parking.

That's a good analogy there. The chances of winning the boardgame "Monopoly" are virtually zero for somebody who joins the game late.
Post reply on HN