[HN Gopher] EU Grabs ARM for First ExaFLOP Supercomputer
___________________________________________________________________
EU Grabs ARM for First ExaFLOP Supercomputer
Author : timthorn
Score : 134 points
Date : 2023-10-06 14:18 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.hpcwire.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.hpcwire.com)
| ameerhamza8796 wrote:
| [dead]
| panick21_ wrote:
| I much rather have some investment into a advanced open-source
| RISC-V CPU and phones and laptops based on that. An Open hardware
| graphics accilerator would be great too.
|
| But if we are gone do a HPC thing, at least make the processor
| open-hardware and RISC-V.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| The libraries and compiler infrastructure are not ready. There
| is even some HPC optimization difficulty with ARM, which is
| much more mature.
|
| Doubly so on the consumer side of things.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Good oppertunity to get those things up to speed.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| And that is happening right now.
|
| RISC-V is coming, it just takes a long time.
| znpy wrote:
| As an european...
|
| On one hand, it's nice to see funding to european companies to
| develop european technolgy, aiming at a technological
| sovereignty.
|
| On the other hand, SiPearl looks like it was virtually unknown up
| to this point, and I can't seem to find anything looking like a
| cpu review (their website claims they have already released at
| least one generation of Rhea cpus). So this amount of money might
| not be wasted but still not optimally spent. Which isn't 100%
| bad, but at least bittersweet.
|
| If anything, without reviews and performance benchmarks, we might
| just get ExaFLOPS _on paper_.
|
| Like how does one of these Rhea CPUs compare to, say, a Graviton
| 2/3 or to an Ampere Altra cpu?
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Actually Rhea was "known" for awhile, but reading between the
| lines, looks like it got delayed and updated:
|
| https://www.anandtech.com/show/16072/sipearl-lets-rhea-desig...
|
| (Neoverse V1 and HBM2e woild make this chip kinda old when its
| finally operational).
|
| CPU design takes many years, and this was a HPC only chip, so
| it doesn't necessarily need to be marketed and paraded around,
| and the workloads will be totally different than what Graviton
| processors run.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| They are using the ARM Neoverse V1 platform, so they aren't
| really greenfielding this. Comparatively the Altra uses the
| Neoverse N1 platform, which is an older HPC design. The
| supercomputer is planned to be very GPU heavy, so while the
| CPUs offer SVE they really are primarily orchestrators to the
| GPU and wouldn't be a major factor regardless. They're the duct
| tape.
|
| Like many vendors in the ARM space, most of the real innovation
| and design comes from ARM.
| cherryteastain wrote:
| There's only one way to promote domestic industries in this
| space when they are behind/nonexistent: tons of subsidies, even
| if the domestic alternatives are worse. That's how China,
| Taiwan, Korea and Japan did it.
| znpy wrote:
| yeah i understand that, hence the first point.
| blitzar wrote:
| I know it gets a bad rap in China, and you have to get
| through the crys of socialism ... but I would like to see the
| state take partial ownership when it throws tons of subsidies
| at a domestic company like this.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| I wonder if we (United States ) could get a risc v in a
| supercomputer .
| redundantly wrote:
| It's not RISC-V:
|
| > SiPearl chose ARM as it is well-established and ready for
| high-performance applications. Experts say RISC-V is many years
| away from mainstream server adoption.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| I mean the United States should build a risc v supercomputer
| and fund the research
| moffkalast wrote:
| > The Jupiter supercomputer, which will cost EUR273 million to
| build, will pair SiPearl's Rhea processor, which is based on ARM
| architecture, with accelerator technology from Nvidia.
|
| An ARM and a leg, for sure.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| SiPearl didn't come out of the blue. This has been in planning
| for years:
|
| https://www.anandtech.com/show/16072/sipearl-lets-rhea-desig...
|
| https://semiengineering.com/tag/sipearl/
|
| ...It may even be behind schedule?
| riedel wrote:
| Interesting thing is that they do not have a Wikipedia entry.
| It seems purely a product of JU / European Processor
| Initiative. If this works it would be one of the few real
| successes of the European funding framework.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Many interesting chips escape Wikipedia's gaze. For instance,
| there was a very interesting x86, Zen-like CPU from Centaur
| with an onboard AI accelerator that is basically undocumented
| on Wikipedia:
|
| https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/3256/centaur-
| new-x86-server-p...
|
| https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/3099/centaur-unveils-its-
| new-...
| my123 wrote:
| At this point, Centaur pretty much no longer exists, with
| engineers transferred to Intel. CNS never ended up becoming
| a product.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Yes, but it was still fascinating!
|
| Imagine if it came out today. I feel like its the near
| perfect architecture for cheap GenAI.
| owlbite wrote:
| It seems odd to focus on the CPU here, when presumably the vast
| majority of those flops re coming from the NVIDIA parts?
|
| Are the CPUs expected to contribute significant compute, as
| opposed to marshaling data in/out of the real compute units?
| cmdrk wrote:
| it really depends on the workload. as other posters have said,
| not everything can/should be ported to GPU. some scientific
| calculations are simply not parallelizable in that way.
|
| typically at least in the US there's a mix of GPU-focused
| machines as well as traditional CPU-focused machines. the
| leadership class machines (i.e., the machines funded to push
| the FLOPS records) tend to be highly focused on GPU. one reason
| is fixed cooling/power availability. I assume these facilities
| are looking at ARM as a way to save 10-20% on power and thus
| cram that much more into the facility.
| monocasa wrote:
| You'd be surprised. A lot of supercomputers aren't that much
| about individual CPU core perf, but having a lot of low power
| cores connected in a novel way. The BlueGene supercomputers
| were composed of low spec PowerPC cores (even for the time).
|
| High perf/watt matter more than just high perf/node, but even
| that balanced against 'how low latency can the interconnect
| be'.
|
| You then hit the high FLOP count with tons of nodes.
|
| To be fair Nvidia realized this paradigm years ago too, which
| is why they bought Mellanox.
| jefft255 wrote:
| Yes, CPUs are still the main workhorse for many scientific
| workloads. Sometimes just because the code hasn't been ported,
| sometimes because it's just not something that a GPU can do
| well.
| londons_explore wrote:
| > just because the code hasn't been ported,
|
| Seems stupid to use millions of dollars of supercomputer time
| just because you can't be bothered to get a few phd students
| to spend a few months rewriting in CUDA...
| mlyle wrote:
| A supercomputer might cost $200M and use $6M of electricity
| per year.
|
| Amortizing the supercomputer over 5 years, a 12 hour job on
| that supercomputer may cost $63k.
|
| If you want it cheaper, your choices are:
|
| A) run on the supercomputer as-is, and get your answer in
| 12 hours (+ scheduling time based on priority)
|
| B) run on a cheaper computer for longer-- an already-
| amortized supercomputer, or non-supercomputing resources
| (pay calendar time to save cost)
|
| C) try to optimize the code (pay human time and calendar
| time to save cost) -- how much you benefit depends upon
| labor cost, performance uplift, and how much calendar time
| matters.
|
| Not all kinds of problems get much uplift from CUDA,
| anyways.
| jonwachob91 wrote:
| >> A supercomputer might cost $200M and use $6M of
| electricity per year.
|
| I'm curious, what university has a $200MM super computer?
|
| I know governments have numerous Supercomputers that blow
| past $200MM in build price, but what universities do?
| sophacles wrote:
| University of Illinois had Blue Waters ($200+MM, built in
| ~2012, decomissioned in the last couple years).
|
| https://www.ncsa.illinois.edu/research/project-
| highlights/bl...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Waters
|
| They have always had a lot of big compute around.
| mlyle wrote:
| > I know governments have numerous Supercomputers that
| blow past $200MM in build price, but what universities
| do?
|
| Even when individual universities don't-- governments
| have supercomputing centers that universities are a
| primary user of and often charge back value of computing
| time to the university or it is a separate item that is
| competitively granted.
|
| Here we're talking about Jupiter, which is a ~$300M
| supercomputer where research universities will be a
| primary user.
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| CUDA is buggy proprietary shit that doesn't work half the
| time or segfaults with compiler errors.
|
| Basically, unless you have a very specific workload that
| NVidia has specifically tested, I wouldn't bother with it.
| brnt wrote:
| The JSC employs a good number of people doing exactly this.
| cmdrk wrote:
| sometimes the code is deeply complex stuff that has
| accumulated for over 30 years. to _just_ rewrite it in CUDA
| can be a massive undertaking that could easily produce
| subtly incorrect results that end up in papers could
| propagate far into the future by way of citations etc
| throwaway10965 wrote:
| Sounds like a great job for LLMs. Are there any public
| repositories of this code? I want to try.
| mlyle wrote:
| Sounds like a -terrible- job for LLMs, because this is
| all about attention to detail. Order of operations and
| specific constructs of how floating point work in the
| codes in question are usually _critical_.
|
| Have fun: https://www.qsl.net/m5aiq/nec-
| code/nec2-1.2.1.2.f
| londons_explore wrote:
| All the more reason to rewrite it... You don't want some
| mistake in 30 year old COBOL code to be making your 2023
| experiment to have wrong results.
| mlyle wrote:
| The whole point is in these older numerical codes is that
| they're proven and there's a long history of results to
| compare against.
| gmueckl wrote:
| That's the complete opposite of what is actually the
| case: some of that really old code in these programs is
| battle-tested and verified. Any rewrite of such parts
| would just destroy that work for no good reason.
| dpe82 wrote:
| *FORTRAN.
| _a_a_a_ wrote:
| Why don't YOU take some old code and rewrite it. I tried
| it for some 30+ year old HPC code and it was a grim
| experience and I failed hard. So why not keep your lazy,
| fatuous suggestions to yourself.
| bee_rider wrote:
| >> just because the code hasn't been ported, sometimes
| because it's just not something that a GPU can do well.
|
| > Seems stupid to use millions of dollars of supercomputer
| time just because you can't be bothered to get a few phd
| students to spend a few months rewriting in CUDA...
|
| Rewriting code in CUDA won't magically make workloads well
| suited to GPGPU.
| wang_li wrote:
| It's highly likely that a workload that is suitable to
| run on hundreds of disparate computers with thousands of
| CPU cores is going to be equally well suited for running
| on tens of thousands of GPU compute threads.
| atq2119 wrote:
| Not necessarily. GPUs simply aren't optimized around
| branch-heavy or pointer-chasey code. If that describes
| the inner loop of your workload, it just doesn't matter
| how well you can parallelize it at a higher level, CPU
| cores are going to be better than GPU cores at it.
| monocasa wrote:
| They're not that disparate; the workloads are normally
| very dependent on the low latency interconnect of most
| supercomputers.
| xadhominemx wrote:
| Agreed, the CPUs are not performing the scientific calculations
| in this system.
|
| Also note -- this project is quite modest in scale. Dozens of
| GenAI clusters larger than this computer will be installed at
| cloud data centers in the next 18 months.
| RetroTechie wrote:
| _" The Jupiter will instead have SiPearl's ARM processor
| based on ARM's Neoverse V1 CPU design. SiPearl has designed
| the Rhea chip to be universally compliant with many
| accelerators, and it supports high-bandwidth memory and DDR5
| memory channels."_
|
| And
|
| _" Julich is also building out its machine-learning and
| quantum computing infrastructure, which the supercomputing
| center hopes to plug in as accelerator modules hosted at its
| facility."_
|
| So a modular setup, where different aspects can be upgraded
| as needed. Btw:
|
| > Also note -- this project is quite modest in scale.
|
| "Exascale" and EUR273M doesn't sound modest to me. No matter
| what it's compared against.
| xadhominemx wrote:
| At EUR300m, the Jupiter will be ~10,000 H100s. Each major
| CSP will have several clusters this size or larger within a
| few quarters.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Almost all of the AI computers being built now are
| relatively modestly sized compared to a supercomputer. All
| but the biggest ones are at or under the low hundreds of
| nodes (low thousands of GPUs). The only real exceptions are
| the few AI hyperscale companies that want to sell GPU
| computing to others.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Do AI hyperscalers devote a their whole system to one big
| run anyway?
|
| If they don't, then those are big clusters in the sense
| that AWS is the world's biggest supercomputer, which is
| to say, not.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| AWS is not a supercomputer because it doesn't have high-
| adjacency networking. If AWS turned its biggest region
| loose on Linpack, I would be surprised if they cracked
| the top 50 on the supercomputer list, despite probably
| having more cores than #1.
|
| The AI hyperscalers certainly claim to be able to devote
| 100% of cluster capacity to one training run. Google is
| training some huge models, OpenAI is also.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Will these GenAI clusters have similar interconnects and
| ability to run scientific computing/HPC codes? AI has moved
| over to ASICS and GPUs nowadays, right? I also have no idea
| what their interconnect requirements are, but the task seems
| pretty low communication, I wonder if they can get by with a
| cheaper interconnect.
| the_svd_doctor wrote:
| AI training requires a lot of global reductions which must
| be very fast otherwise everything slows down. So they also
| require fast and low latency interconnects.
| hexane360 wrote:
| I don't know how you can describe "equal to the world's
| fastest supercomputer, which was built less than a year ago"
| as "quite modest".
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| SIMD heavy CPUs can provide quite respectable HPC throughout.
|
| The US Dept of Energy had very favorable things to say about
| the Fujitsu A64FX, which is architecturally similar to the
| SiPearl Rhea (HBM memory, ARM SVE happy, fast interconnect):
| https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1965278
|
| They seemed to like the easy porting and flexible programming
| (since its "just" CPU SIMD) and specifically describe it as
| competitive with Nvidia:
|
| > To highlight, the pink line represents the energy efficiency
| metric for A64FX in boost power mode (described in Section
| IV-C) with an estimated TDP of 140 W and surpassed by the red
| and yellow lines that represent data for the Volta V100 GPU
| (highest) and KNL, respectively. The A64FX architecture scores
| better with the energy efficiency metric relative to the
| performance efficiency metric due to its low power consumption.
|
| In fact, ARM A64FX supercomputers topped the Green500 for some
| time, which is the global supercomputer power efficiency
| ranking, outclassing Nvidia/Intel/AMD machines.
| hashtag-til wrote:
| This is really cool, and as it uses an established architecture,
| can benefit from the software ecosystem that exists around it.
|
| The article focuses basically on the x86 vs. arm competition.
|
| Any idea where to read more about the application this machine is
| expected to run? I guess the usual like weather forecast and
| such?
| zzbn00 wrote:
| Can report Julich is not near Munich.... Anyway will be
| fascinating to see how the SiPearl chip works out.
| eunos wrote:
| Yea, much closer to Aachen in NRW. Side note, it's a small town
| without campus, I wonder why dont they locate the center in
| Aachen or Koln.
| orbifold wrote:
| They used to do nuclear physics research (and still do to
| some extend) there and had an experimental fast breeder
| reactor (capable of producing weapons grade plutonium) on
| campus. They also prepared for rapid development of nuclear
| weapons capabilities in the 60s. It was a site for a
| potential German nuclear weapons program, I think they would
| have been able to produce enough material in ~6 weeks. They
| frame it as "nuclear disarmament" now of course
| https://www.fz-juelich.de/en/news/archive/press-
| release/2022..., but effectively if there is any place where
| scientists in Germany have active knowledge how to develop
| nuclear weapons it would be there. There are several former
| military installations close by, including barracks for a
| guards and supply company.
|
| You don't want something like that in a city centre.
| zzbn00 wrote:
| My vague memory is that there was/is a military or government
| site nearby which is why the research centre is also there.
| b3orn wrote:
| But there's a big research center next to the small town.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forschungszentrum_J%C3%BClich
| solarist wrote:
| They mixed up Garching with Julich.
| dopa42365 wrote:
| Isn't it mostly GPUs/accelerators based rather than CPUs?
|
| Does NVIDIA even sell those anymore without the whole package
| deal since they came up with Grace?
|
| The last supercomputer with NVIDIA GPUs and third party CPUs I
| remember reading about was with Zen 2 cores, multiple years ago.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Perlmutter (#8) was just commissioned into full service earlier
| this year and uses Zen 3 cores with A100s. Leonardo (#4) is
| also current year and uses Xeon CPUs with A100s. Google's H3
| also seems to pair H100s with Xeon CPUs.
|
| But yes, the CPU is mostly just a footnote, most of the FLOPs
| come from the GPUs. Although of course the CPUs still need to
| be sufficiently fast enough that the GPUs can be kept fed.
| leetharris wrote:
| The article says they are using SiPearl's Rhea processor. So
| I'm guessing it's not a "package deal."
|
| And regarding your question about GPU/accelerators, CPUs still
| do a LOT of work in HPC. I'm guessing they chose ARM for
| performance per watt, very important when scaling to many
| processors.
| datameta wrote:
| A bit sad that while POWER9 processors were used in then-SoTA
| supercomputers, as far as I can tell POWER10 (which I worked on
| more) is not being used for scientific/industrial HPC.
| chasil wrote:
| I understand that POWER9 was much more open than its successor.
| Is that a factor?
| wmf wrote:
| No, I think IBM just gave up on HPC.
| datameta wrote:
| It would seem to some that the focus is on servers and
| mainframes. But the thing is the very same reasons the P10
| chip excels in a high-end server apply to massively
| parallel processing. So I don't see a technological or
| implementation barrier.
| stonogo wrote:
| Can confirm; supercomputers don't slot neatly enough into
| quartly EPS goals.
| datameta wrote:
| I can see the humor, but the thing is server and
| mainframe sales already fluctuate based on hardware
| generation cycles (~3 yrs start to finish, sometimes
| server overlapping with mainframe or memory controller).
| stonogo wrote:
| Those contracts are reliable in that the customer is
| extremely unlikely to move to a different product line.
| Especially when you've got a customer locked in, refresh
| timescales are pretty predictable.
|
| HPC contracts are generally borne of federal-agency RFPs,
| and are _extremely_ competitive, and they only 'pay out'
| upon a passed acceptance test, so it's not trivially
| possible to predict which quarter your revenue will land
| for a given sale. You wind up with sales teams putting
| tons of work into a contract that didn't get selected,
| which sucks, but even if you win you might wind up
| missing sales goals, and then overshooting the mark the
| following quarter.
|
| In a company less hidebound this obviously wouldn't be a
| problem, but IBM has been run by the beancounters for
| long enough that the prestige isn't worth the murky
| forecast.
| datameta wrote:
| As my own opinion, I believe the OpenPower project went
| strong with P10. I was not around to hear the contrast in
| decisions between P9 and P10 strategy, so I can't quite
| compare.
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| I get the impression this is more subsidizing domestic
| development than a decision made for the overall "best" CPU.
|
| https://www.eenewseurope.com/en/sipearl-raises-e90m-for-rhea...
| bigdave42 wrote:
| ARM is a UK company - the UK is (stupidly) not part of the EU
| pjmlp wrote:
| It is still closer to us than depending on US technology, as
| times are proving globalization has gone too far.
| sproketboy wrote:
| [dead]
| bee_rider wrote:
| I thought SoftBank bought them, making them a Japanese
| company?
|
| In any case, SiPearl seems to be the one designing the actual
| chip, they are French.
| devnullbrain wrote:
| >I thought SoftBank bought them, making them a Japanese
| company?
|
| What a weird metric for determining the nationality of a
| company. Intel are publicly traded: are they stateless?
| shard wrote:
| I think typically a company having shareholders all over
| the world does not make people think that it is
| stateless. However, ownership transfer does make a
| difference, especially when considering how much the new
| parent company alters the original company's
| image/culture. For example, I think that Segway has
| pretty much lost its US company image after being
| purchased by Ninebot, with Ninebot products being
| prominently displayed on the Segway website.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I should have been more direct.
|
| The chip is being designed by a French company, they can
| license the IP from outside the EU while still building
| up the EU domestic chip building capabilities. They've
| just outsourced one (big) piece of the puzzle.
|
| Calling ARM a Japanese company was just to highlight the
| international nature of these sorts of projects.
| sgerenser wrote:
| Although SoftBank still owns 90% of the equity, they're now
| back to being public and since their headquarters is still
| Cambridge, I'd still call them a UK company.
| [deleted]
| bee_rider wrote:
| That's probably fair, I was just teasing.
|
| In general, I think ARM just was famously started in the
| UK and so they'll always be associated with the country
| in some intangible way.
|
| It is sort of funny that we label companies like this,
| really they are all multi-national entities. Especially
| in the case of a company like ARM--they license out the
| designs to be (sometimes quite significantly!) customized
| by engineers in other countries, and I'm sure they
| integrate lots of feedback from those partners. Then
| those designs are often actually fabricated in a third
| country!
|
| Which is good, the world is best when we all need each
| other.
| [deleted]
| b3orn wrote:
| They chose an ARM CPU by SiPearl. The European Processor
| Initiative (EPI) lists them as French/German. Interestingly
| Forschungszentrum Julich (which this supercomputer is for) is
| also listed as member of EPI.
| chasil wrote:
| However, the fact that Fujitsu previously claimed the top-
| performing "Fugaku" supercomputer with their own custom 48-core
| CPU (fabbed at TSMC) certainly justifies the choice of an
| AArch64 design.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujitsu_A64FX
| nologic01 wrote:
| The economics (and politics) of the HPC ecosystem always feels a
| bit murky and its impact on the broader computing landscape not
| as much as you would expect. Expensive, one-of-a-kind designs
| that push the envelope (and pressumably deliver what they are
| commissioned for) but are floating somewhere above what the rest
| of the world is using.
|
| What would a healthy EU HPC ecosystem look like? At some point
| there was some excitement about Beowulf clusters [1]. When
| building a new supercomputer, think, for example about making at
| least its main compute units more widely available (universities,
| startups, SME's etc). HPC Computing is arcane and to tap its
| potential in the post-Moore's law era it needs to get much more
| democratized and popular.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf_cluster
| Someone wrote:
| > making at least its main compute units more widely available
|
| If they did, would anybody want them? Are those units
| competitive for smaller setups and the kind of jobs they run?
| nologic01 wrote:
| it would depend heavily on costs and tangible benefits versus
| e.g., renting something from cloud providers. its a new
| vista, its anybody's guess how things will look in five
| years, but when Intel's CEO is touting the era of the "AI PC"
| [1] their projection must be that a certain market will form
| around compute intensive _local_ computing (largely prompted
| by the popularity of LLM /AI but that just one domain).
|
| on the second branch of your question, indeed a local
| "supercomputer piece" should have a sufficient number of
| CPU/GPU's to pack meaningful computational power. this way it
| would also require and enable the right kind of tooling and
| programming that scales to larger sizes.
|
| given that algorithms can enhance practically any existing
| application (productivity, games etc), this might be a case
| of "build it and they will come"
|
| [1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/intel-ceo-get-ready-for-the-
| ai-pc
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| Sure.. Plenty of Supercomputers are just A100s, which are
| also perfectly usable in a single DL workstation.
|
| * at least if they used pci-e
| blitzar wrote:
| > What would a healthy EU HPC ecosystem look like?
|
| It already exists, there are probably >100 HPC clusters spread
| throughout the EU in universities + the CERN cluster etc.
|
| > startups, SME's etc
|
| Why would we want to provide resources for a startup to waste
| compute resources to optimise advertising clicks? They can
| spend their VC cash at aws.
| nologic01 wrote:
| you (or rather the tax payer that pays your salary) would not
| "provide" anything. the concept is for non-government money
| sponsored entities to get access (by buying) substantially
| similar (but scaled down) architectures _instead_ of spending
| their VC cash at aws.
|
| ultimately this is also better use of taxpayer money:
| diffusing technology more wider and educating people to make
| use of supercomputing technologies beyond the ivory towers
| blitzar wrote:
| The demand compute time within the existing users far
| outstrips the supply, by orders of magnitude, hence why
| more is being installed.
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| Direct quote from your link:
|
| "Since 2017, every system on the Top500 list of the world's
| fastest supercomputers has used Beowulf software methods and a
| Linux operating system."
|
| As for accessible by everyone: here is how you can apply for
| computing time via PRACE, if you work at an academic
| institution, a commercial company or a government entity
| located in Europe:
|
| https://prace-ri.eu/call/eurohpc-ju-call-for-proposals-for-r...
|
| In addition to the very large machines that are covered by
| PRACE, typically there are national calls for access to
| "smaller" HPC resources, say up to a few million CPU-hours per
| year. The allocations on PRACE average around 30-40 million
| cpu-hours.
|
| What is explicitly _NOT_ allowed on these machines is typically
| running jobs that use just a handful of cores. They 've paid a
| lot of money for the fancy interconnect, amd they want to see
| it used.
| nologic01 wrote:
| Remote "cloud" style access is also interesting and important
| for various use-cases. But I was thinking more in terms of
| local compute capabilities. I.e. somebody actually packaging
| these new compute units into workstations / servers to be
| used by diverse entities.
| AdamN wrote:
| There is also the benefit of all the people that get that
| experience and then bring it to trad-computing.
| Havoc wrote:
| If they only spent half the budget then is the Nvidia part still
| to come?
| wslh wrote:
| What is the approximate price of the SiPearl's Rhea processor?
| swores wrote:
| I believe it's not announced yet.
|
| I'll chuck out an unqualified estimate of EUR10k each, will
| find out next year (probably) if I'm anywhere close!
| riedel wrote:
| >The Julich Supercomputing Centre, which is near Munich, will
| host the system.
|
| Interesting take on geography .
|
| The confusion, pobably has to do with the fact that the German
| tier 0 Gauss super computing center is actually spread over 3
| sites (Julich near Cologne/Aachen, Stuttgart and Garching near
| Munich)
| tremon wrote:
| _Stuttgart and Garching near Munich_
|
| This reads weird. It took me way too many seconds of wondering
| "wouldn't Stuttgart be nearer to... Stuttgart?" before I
| understood what you wrote. Sometimes the Oxford Comma has
| value, it seems.
| suyjuris wrote:
| The name of the city is "Garching bei Munchen" which
| translates to "Garching near Munich". This disambiguates it
| from ,,Garching an der Alz". (Although Julich is just called
| Julich.)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-06 23:01 UTC)