Forgot your password?
Hardware Technology

Grid Processing 130

Posted by Hemos
from the all-together-now dept.
c1ay writes "We've all heard the new buzzword, "grid computing" quite a bit in the news recently. Now the EE Times reports that a team of computer architects at the University of Texas here plans to develop prototypes of an adaptive, gridlike processor that exploits instruction-level parallelism. The prototypes will include four Trips(Tera-op Reliable Intelligently Adaptive Processing System) processors, each containing 16 execution units laid out in a 4 x 4 grid. By the end of the decade, when 32-nanometer process technology is available, the goal is to have tens of processing units on a single die, delivering more than 1 trillion operations per second. In an age where clusters are becoming more prevalent for parallel computing I've often wondered where the parallel processor was. How about you?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Grid Processing

Comments Filter:
  • Yep (Score:1, Funny)

    by akadruid (606405) *
    Yep, that's just what I wondered.

    And before anyone says it, no I have ever thought about a beowolf cluster of those...
  • To make a brick of these things, or some kind of cube, with massive processing power that one could just carry around and interface with via their PDA?

    Just think about carrying around something as fast, if not faster, than your desktop that fits in the palm of your hand.
  • My first thought when I saw "Trips" was "Total Reality Intrgrated Playing System" from Battletoads... What's next, we're going to get sucked into the gamescape? :)
  • by exebeoex (561339) on Monday September 15, 2003 @08:55AM (#6962928)
    A question for anyone with such experience:

    I assume it would be somewhat difficult to program efficiently for such systems. I don't mean just getting programs to run, but getting the most bang for your buck. Can anyone here confirm or deny this? Also does anyone know where to find resources on the topic of programming such machines (and no, I am not talking about smp docs or bewoulf docs or even pvm docs)?
    • I'm not sure wabout other platforms but in the case of Oracle, they say you don't require any code changes. Your application should run fine right out of the box.
    • Hypercube Theory handels this quite well. Addressing would be n-dimensional you can google hypercube and find lots of nifty SGI doc's for thier old Onyx architechure but it also applies to Beowulf's, PVM, MPI, Cray and any other massivlly parallell architechure. This would be a hypercube on a chip as opposed to a hypercube of chips. And I'm not going to mention the complexities of Queing theory but at 32nm it's a Doctoral Thesus waiting to happen.
    • by gbjbaanb (229885) on Monday September 15, 2003 @10:00AM (#6963388)
      Most parallel systems only work for a certain type of problem - one where processing can be split into many small chunks, each one non-dependant on the others.

      eg. who cares how many instructions you can process in parallel, if module A requires data from module B. In these cases parallelisation is limited to making each module run faster (if it doesn't have sub dependencies, of course), the entire program doesn't benefit from the parallelisation.

      Good examples of parallel processing are the ones we know - distributed apps like SETI@home, graphics rendering, etc.

      Bad systems are everyday data processing systems - they typically work on a single lump of data at a time in sequences.

      A good source of parallel programming is or, of course, google.

      • by pmz (462998)
        Good examples of parallel processing are the ones we know...

        On a coarser level this also includes any multi-user UNIX system that is actually used by multiple users. While not allowing per-person scaling, it allows very significant institutional scaling.
      • Vision, 3D rendering, artificial intelligence, moving units around in a strategy game, web server, file server, mail server, MMORPG server...
      • If the parallelism is at the microcode level, which is what this article is addressing, then the 'type' of application is irrelevant - you will still gain speed benefits.

        Think of a computer system as virtual boxes within boxes. At the lowest level you have the physical logic gates that make up the processor. Above that level you have the microcode which is a very simple application that forms the underlying structure of a virtual von neuman machine, and associated extensions - accessible via an assembler
    • by goombah99 (560566) on Monday September 15, 2003 @11:35AM (#6964351)
      Fortran is NOT for every day programming of word processors and such. However the Modern Fortran Language probably ought to be the choice for most scientific programming, its just that people think of it as an "old" as in decrepit Languange and dont learn it.

      for parallel processing fortran boast many language level features that give ANY code implicit parallelism and implicit multi-threading and implicit distribution of memory WITHOUT the programmer cognizantly invoking multiple threads or having to use special libraries or overloaded commands.
      An example of this is the FORALL and WHERE statements that replace the usual "for" and "if" in C.

      FORALL (I = 1:5)
      WHERE (A(I,:) /= 0.0)
      A(I,:) = log(A(i;0)
      call some_slow_disk_write(A(I,:)

      the FORALL runs the loop with the variable "i" over the range 1 to 5 but in any order not just 1,2,3,4,5 and also of course can be done in parallel if the compiler or OS, not the programmer, sees the opportunity on the run-time platform. The statement is a clue from the programmer to the compiler not to worry about dependencies. Moreover the program can intelligently multi-thread so the slow-disk-write operation does not stop the loop on each interation.

      The WHERE is like an "if" but tells the compiler to map the if operation over the array in parallel. What this means is that you can place conditional test inside of loops and the compiler knows how to factor the if out of the loop in a parallel and non-dependant manner.

      Moreover, since the WHERE and FORALL tell the compiler that the there are no memory dependent interactions it must worry about. thus it can simply distibute just peices of the A array to different processors, without having to do maintain concurrency between the array used by different processcors, thus elminating shared memory bottlenecks.

      Another parallelism feature is that the header declaration not only declare the "type" of variable ,as C does, but also if the routine will change that variable. This lets the compiler know that it can multi-thread and not have to worry about locking an array against changes. In the example, the disk-write subroutine would declare the argument (A) to be immutable. Again the multi-threading is hidden from the user, no need for laborious "synchronize" mutex statements. It also allows for the concept of conditionally-mutable data.

      Other rather nice virutes of FORTRAN is that it uses references rather than pointers (like java). And amazingly the syntax makes typos that compile almost impossible. that is, a missing +,=,comma, semi colon, the wrong number of array indicies, etc... will not compile (in contrast to ==, ++, =+ and [][] etc ...).

      One sad reason the world does not know about these wonderful features, or repeats the myths about the fortran language missing features is due to GNU. yes I know its a crime to crtisize GNU on slashdot but bear with me here because in this case they desereve some for releasing a non DEC-compatible language.

      for the record, ancient fortran 77 as welll as modern fortran 95 DOES do dynamic allocation, support complex data structures (classes), have pointers (references) in every professional fortran compiler. Sadly GNU fortran 77, the free fortran, lacks these language features and there is no GNU fortran 95 yet. This is lack prevents a lot of people from writing code in this modern language. if Gnu g77 did not exist the professional compilers would be much more affordable. So I hope some reader who know about complier design is motivate to give the languishing GNU fortran 95 project the push it needs to finnish.

      In the age of ubiquitous dual processing fortran could well become a valuable scientific language due to its ease of programming and resitance to syntax errors

      • There's a good book explaining a lot of this stuff in detail available from O'reilly []. I can vouch for it having some neat stuff, and it covers how to write fortran in such a way as to take advantage of the parallelism features.
      • For those who want to help here's the link to the gnu g95 [] page. The fact this is not out yet is community wide shame.

        I wonder if there is some way someone could practically and legally set up a compilation server for F95 using a non gnu fortran. One could probably talk one of the proprietary compilers (Portland group or Absoft) into allowing this since it would actually promote sales of their products.

        The reason this would improves sales is that This would alleviate the dillema programmers face. Writ

      • Sadly GNU fortran 77, the free fortran, lacks these language features and there is no GNU fortran 95 yet. This is lack prevents a lot of people from writing code in this modern language.

        I wouldn't put much blame on GNU. Fortran 77 was a fairly unpleasant language, even before GNU existed. Compiler extensions sometimes helped but weren't too great for portability.

        Not that I don't want to see a GNU Fortran 95, but if you can tolerate free as in beer software, Intel makes their fortran compiler availa

    • The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that a large portion of the TRIPS project is devoted to compiler infrastructure, to make it manageable. From what I've seen at some of their presentations, they've made a decent amount of headway.

    • Check out MIT's Cilk [], a language specifically designed for multithreaded parallel programming.

      Memory is like an orgasm. It's a lot better if you don't have to fake it. -- Seymore Cray
    • Good question (Score:3, Interesting)

      by epepke (462220)

      I spent 13 years at the Supercomputer Computations Research Institute, an interdisciplinary research institute whose job it was to figure such things out. Amongst other goodies, we had the first CM-2 (a SIMD box with 65536 processors) with floating point chips, at the time the fastest machine in the world. We also had a homegrown machine for quantum chromadynamics. And a cluster with 150+ nodes, and some shared memory machines, yada yada yada. Lots of stuff.

      So, from my experience:

      It's a little bit tri

      • Just to be clear, what we are proposing is a faster scalar processor that happens to have lots of arithmetic units, which is optimized (through lots of speculation) to run single threads quickly. We do break binary compatibility, but are working on a static translation tool to convert dusty deck binaries into TRIPS binaries with no programmer (obviously) intervention. That being said, we are incorporating modes where graphics and DSP-type workloads can take advantage of all those arithmetic units. We'd r
  • by scorp1us (235526) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:00AM (#6962951) Journal
    Anyone remember from T2 what the CPU looked like? It was a 3 dimentional grid of CPUs...

    Don't say I didn't warn you!
  • by pridkett (2666) <slashdot@wagstro[ ]et ['m.n' in gap]> on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:00AM (#6962953) Homepage Journal
    This is not an example of the Grid Computing (ala Globus []) that we've been hearing about. This is another example of laying out processor cores on a chip. So a better thing would be to compare this to the ideas for the UltraSPARC V and IBM BlueGene computers where multiple processing cores are put on one chip and then arranged in a grid (think physical grid) architecture.

    Grid Computing deals with computation and information sharing seemlessy across a network, they used to always say like how the power grid works. Which in reality is about right as it doesn't always work as advertised.

    Anyway, Grid Computing is mainly concerned with software to allow multiple computers to work together seemlessly. This includes registry services, single sign of, information transfer, etc.

    This appears to be the rather fortunate result of a phenomenon called "Buzzword collision", where two different projects pick the same buzzword in hopes to really confuse people who don't read the articles and trick PHBs into thinking that each project is ueberimportant.
    • They do work on the same principle though. It's just that grid computing on a network involves processors that are vastly separated and consume different resources, whereas the "new" grid computing involves tightly bound, hardwired processors that share resources. It's not like you have to be an engineer to figure out the difference... and if you don't read about it and you get confused, that's your own fault. ;)
    • Naturally, if it was called Slow-poke Faulty, Blindly Restrictive Procesing System I would be less inclined to trust this solution.
    • If this really was just a grid layout of cores on a chip, then no, I would not call it grid computing.

      But from looking at the diagram and rereading the article a few times, I think this goes far beyond that and approaches something that really could be called grid computing.

      Instead of just being issued instructions from a central control unit, these units seem to have far more developed abilities to communicate with each other and work together. Not just for the issuing of instructions, but during ex
  • by Tangurena (576827) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:04AM (#6962966)
    Transputers were processors designed from the ground up for parallel processing. Have been around for years, but no one in America noticed them. Therefore they did not exist. I am surprised at the constant reinvention of the wheel, because of the NIH principle (Not Invented Here).

    There are some programming languages designed for parallelism. Biggest hassle is efficiently partitioning problems into something parallel. Not all problems can be done faster by doing more of it at once.

      the connection machine was another parallel computing system (64k little bitty processors hooked together into a grid) that had a flurry of excitement around it (almost 70 of them in operation at the peak of activity!) and then sorta died off. alot of the problems with systems like this weren't really flaws in the basic idea, just economic issues. If you can make a cheap non parallel system run some ugly hack of solution to the problem in something semi close to the time
    • Oh, you mean 9 women can't have the baby in a month? Crap. Another good plan shot to hell.

      • Actually, they can. If you keep 9 women constantly
        pregnant on a rotation schedule, they will produce
        one baby per month, with some variance and the
        occasional miscarriage.

        As a domain expert with years in parallel computing
        under my belt, I claim dibs on that job.
    • no one in America noticed them
      We used transputers on quite a large number of projects right here at the University of Texas.

      the NIH principle
      Actually, the problem was that they were slow and complicated. They went so long between family upgrades that eventually we could replace a large array of transputers with a few regular CPUs. Not to mention that we can also get a handy little thing like an OS on general purpose CPUs.

      programming languages designed for parallelism
      Did I mention complicated? Occam w
      • by AlecC (512609) <> on Monday September 15, 2003 @10:32AM (#6963703)
        Obviously there's a lot of work to be done in parallel processing. You can hardly blame Inmos's problems on geography (or America for Inmos's problems). They looked very promising for awhile, but just didn't keep up.

        Seconded, loudly. Inmos was a classic case of great engineering trashed by lousy management. When the transputer came out, it was fantastic, leading edge stuff. But inmos turned everybody off bay saying that you had to use it their way and no other.

        The thing that shows how good the transputer was that it was still selling ten years after it first came out, when it had been overtaken and lapped several times by conventional CPUs. But that cannot go on for ever - by the time they died, you could simulate a tranputer in a conventional CPU that cost less but ran faster.

      • I believe there was a Unix-like OS for transputer systems (IIRC). I went to college at the UWE, where we had the Bristol Transputer Centre, and Inmos itself was quite nearby (I think I did either a 1st or 2nd year undergraduate project which involved Inmos). I remember they said that they tried to present an image that Inmos was a US firm in the US to help with marketing, since home grown stuff apparently sells better in the US.

        Back to the OS. I think it was in use by Southampton University, and IIRC the m
  • by pr0ntab (632466) <.pr0ntab. .at.> on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:04AM (#6962967) Journal
    Normally I don't pimp Sun, but here's something that makes me think they still have a finger on the pulse of things:
    Read about plans for Sun's "Niagra" core []

    I understand they hope to create blade systems using high densities of these multiscalar cores for incredible throughput.

    There's your parallel/grid computing. ;-)

    • A more detailed article. [] IBM has been doing dual-core processors in it's flagship Power line for a few years now, although it appears higher numbers of cores per die will only be appearing in more experimental IBM projects. Except perhaps the PS3 Cell Processor [], a collaboration of IBM and Sony. Since the Cell group is based in Austin, there's likely to be some collaboration between TRIPS and Cell. As a matter of fact, they sound very similar.
  • Grid computing? (Score:5, Informative)

    by dan dan the dna man (461768) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:04AM (#6962968) Homepage Journal
    I still think this is not what is commonly understood by the term "Grid Computing". Maybe it's the environment I work in but to me Grid Computing means something else []

    And is exemplified by projects like MyGrid [].
  • Grid confusion (Score:5, Informative)

    by Handyman (97520) * on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:06AM (#6962978) Homepage Journal
    It's funny how people always seem to find a way to confuse what is meant by a "grid". The posting talks about a "4x4 grid" without clarification of the term "grid", which is confusing because grid computing has nothing to do with processing units being lined up in a grid. The "grid" in "grid computing" comes from an analogy with the power grid, not from any form of "grid layout". The analogy is based on the fact that with grid computing, you simply plug your "computing power client appliance" (not necessarily a PC, could be the fridge) into the "computing power outlet" in the wall (a network port, usually), and you can "consume computing power", like you would do with electricity. Computational grids don't even necessarily have to support parallel programs; it is easy to imagine grids that have a maximum allocated unit of a single processor. What makes such grids grids is that you can allocate the power on demand, when you need it, instead of that you have to have your own "computing power generator" (read: megapower CPU) at home.
  • by rhetland (259464) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:08AM (#6962991)

    I use parallel computing on a cluster, in which I divide up my computational domain into a number of chunks, and each chunk is farmed out to a processor. Communication between the processes is required at the chunk boundaries.

    For this case, I see how my code is partitioned, and I also understand (on a general level, at least) what the limitations on speed are: information based between the chunks.

    Now, how will this processor do its 'instruction level' parallelization? Will it be great at do loops (one 'do' per processer)? Will it be like a mini vector processor? What will break down the efficiency of the parallelization?

    I have found that efficiency in parallelization is very application dependent after about 8-32 procesors. Will this break that barrier?

    Most importantly, will it kick butt for MY applications?
  • by jedigeek (102443) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:08AM (#6962993) Journal

    We've all heard the new buzzword, "grid computing" quite a bit in the news recently.

    The article doesn't actually have anything to do with "grid computing", but the processor's design is like a grid. The term "grid computing" [] often refers to large-scale resource sharing (processing/storage).
  • BS & hype (Score:5, Interesting)

    by master_p (608214) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:10AM (#6963004)

    The prototypes will include four Trips processors, each containing 16 execution units laid out in a 4 x 4 grid. By the end of the decade, when 32-nanometer process technology is available, the goal is to have tens of processing units on a single die, delivering more than 1 trillion operations per second.

    At 32 nanometers, Intel could put tens of HT pentium cores on a single chip, achieving the same result.

    "One key question is, Will this novel architecture perform well on a variety of commercial applications?"

    For computational problems that can be broken down into parallel computations, the answer is yes. For all the other types of problems, the answer is no. Although I have to admit that most algorithmic bottlenecks is in iterative tasks that are highly parallelizable.

    On Trips, a traditional program is compiled so that the program breaks down into hyperblocks. The machine loads the blocks so that they go down trees of interconnected execution units. As one instruction is executed, the next one is loaded, and so on.

    *cough* EPIC *cough* VLIW architecture *cough*

    I support parallelism and I am looking forward to seeing it on my desktop, as it will increase the computational power of my computer tremendously. Unfortunately, it will mean new compilers and maybe programming languages that have primitives for expressing parallelism.

    By the way, the transputer [] chip was promising. The idea of lots of computational units running in parallel is nothing new(maybe each memory block must have its own processor to locally process and compute the data).

    • Re:BS & hype (Score:3, Informative)

      by Valar (167606)
      It's not as much hype as you would think (in the interest of full disclosure, I am a UT EE student and about half of my posts now on /. seem to be talking about something the university has done...). Yes, grid computing is a bad term for it, because it's already taken. I'm not sure whose fault it was that it got labelled that, but I doubt it was one of the guys actually working on this. They all seem like competitent lads. Now for what I actually have to say:

      At 32 nanometers, Intel could put tens of HT pe
    • One of the more interesting processor designs would be the FORTH based 25xC18 using 25 C18 cpu cores which could achieve up to 60,000 (!!!) MIPS using a very low power design. The 25xC18 was designed by Chuck Moore. The interesting thing about the FORTH processors is that they use an extremely small instruction set (~24 instructions) and require only ~10K transistors per CPU allowing for very fast and low power operation. It also allows one to add on-chip DRAM right next to the core allowing 1ns memory acce

    • At 32 nanometers, Intel could put tens of HT pentium cores on a single chip, achieving the same result.

      No, they couldn't, because HT pentium cores use way too much power to be packed in at that density. This (and other similar) research is based on using many simple (but fast) low-power cores, usually in an adaptive fashion. (e.g., for one app I use certain processor cores for one portion of processing, for another I use them for something else entirely - and the mapping is usually done explicitly eithe

  • by binaryDigit (557647) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:12AM (#6963011)
    Forgive me if I'm off base here, but perhaps a proccie nerd can explain the differences between this design and say VLIW. They seem closely related, breaking the app into parallelizable chunks and sending them to n execution units. The article doesn't mention if the trips processing nodes can 'talk' to each other. If they can't, then this seems very similar in concept to vliw (if not different in physical and logical layout).
  • by Ristretto (79399) <emery&cs,umass,edu> on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:16AM (#6963041) Homepage
    This story already appeared [], but was posted by someone who was not confused by the use of the term "grid"... Doug Burger, one of the two key profs on this project (and no relation!), answered lots of questions, which you can see here [].

    -- emery berger, dept. of cs, univ. of massachusetts
  • by *weasel (174362) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:17AM (#6963045)
    ... because nearly all programs are data-centric. parallelizing execution of code has an upper-bound with regards to increased efficiency, particularly when considering the increased overhead in memory management and control flow.

    parallelizing the data-processing itself (Eg Seti@Home) whereby the data being worked on itself is spread amongst 'loosely parallel' execution units is much more practical, and doesn't suffer from the overhead involved in creating parallel processor servers, or even parallel execution chips. It also alleviates the memory bottlenecks of parallel execution cores.

    I always wondered what kind of an app demands the kind of big iron that Cray and NEC churn out - that couldn't be more cost effectively realized through distributed processing amongst many independent computers (a la Google).

    It seems, even cyclical, result-dependant processing (weather prediction) could be coded to work in such a manner.

    1000 bare bones p4 3ghz PCs (~$600) have more processing power ( 2500 MFLOPS each ) than a single X1 cabinet ( 819 GFLOPS @ $2.5M ) and as you can see - for less than 1/4 of the cost.
    ( 2.55 TFLOPS @ $600,000 vs 819 GFLOPS @ $2.5M )
    ( p4 MFLOPS hit 5700 each w/ SSE2 )

    Now I imagine there have to be exceptions. There -has- to be a reason to have such big iron for certain problems. There must be a reason that very smart people advise their superiors to buy up around $8b of this stuff each year.

    but i don't personally see the applications, and given the monumental cost of developing a new processor nowadays - the market doesn't seem to either.

    so that's my $0.02 as to why more complex esoteric parallel execution designed chips remain so rare.
    • Scientific and financial computing, especially modelling and simulation, are where parallel computers can make a difference.

      Many of the approaches to these problems take the form of a grid of elements that have local and possibly non-local interactions with each other. Each processor gets a subset of the points to work with and has to communicate with the neighboring processor's memory space to get information about neighboring points.

      In a cluster, handling the points at the edges (or any non-local effec
    • Cray said "Modify the Algebra to suit your Hardware, don't kill your processors with floating point operations, instead use a diffrent more efficent method". And Intel Listened. Crossbar N-Dimensional hypercubes are great for decreaseing the wall-clock time on complex problems, most noteably simulations. The worlds Largest super computer (NEC's Earth Sim in Japan) is used to do just that. The issue is the netowrk bandwidth or moving information form one cache to another. That is costly and intorduces a proc
    • Most progamming languages (C, java) dont parallelize efficeintly and others written for parrallism are too special purpose to warrant attention. On the other hand there is good old fortran which will surprise a lot of people because its written to allow implicit multi-processing and avoid shared memory distribution and concurrency bottlenecks. see this post on slashdot []
  • by yerdaddie (313155) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:18AM (#6963054) Homepage
    The ability to adapt the architecture for the workload, as discussed in this article, is something common to many different reconfigurable computing architectures [] like:
    Quite a number of researchers are looking at the performance and density [] adavantages of reconfigurable architectures in addition to the work mentioned in this article. What's really intriguing is considering how opreating systems could support reconfiguration []. Doesn't seem to be much work on the subject.
  • Carly said it is all hype and we cannot use grid's for at least another 5 years. Obviously Carly does not read slashdot or own a Linux box.
    • Another instance of someone just having to snipe at a person in high position just because the said person lacks a Y chromosome. And yes, I've got one.
  • skynet to become selfaware is now what?
  • by ChrisRijk (1818) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:32AM (#6963135)
    If even with one CPU core, if your system is main memory bandwidth limited (or mostly), then extra cores won't help (much). So this kind of design looks good only for non bandwidth limited tasks, which is a much smaller market.

    They don't seem to be considering business servers here, but they are more main memory latency limited than bandwidth limited, so multiple cores can help a lot. But you need more than simply lots of cores to have a good design. A critical thing to have is major software support which means using an existing ISA, not a new one.

    So I'd expect this to be quite an obscure product in reality.
  • Isn't this what the PS3 is supposed to use? Some sort of grid-like structure in their processor?
    • by Adm1n (699849)
      Cell is a joint venture in vaporware by motorola and IBM, it's designed to be a "Massivelly Parallell Microprocessor" consisting of (last I read) 6 Dies on one core each to render a portion of your screen. Used in conjunciton with your broadband connection to render information. The problem bieng that brodband is horribly slow in terms of speed and throughput when compared with standard ethernet and high-speed crossbar architechures. Sony's CEO was quoted as saying that "Game developers wish to see a 1000 f
  • In an age where clusters are becoming more prevalent for parallel computing I've often wondered where the parallel processor was. How about you?"

    I may be thinking in different terms than you, but my understanding of future chip design is, that multiple CPU cores on one chip, is basically becoming the norm. To some extent, is this what hyper threading does on the newest Intel chips? I recall also reading the PPC G5 chip in the newer Mac's has multiple processor cores.

    So, to answer... where are parall
    • by Adm1n (699849) on Monday September 15, 2003 @11:09AM (#6964084)
      No no no.
      Ok, HT double clocks the Cache! so you have two cache's for the price of one! The G5 is a multicore chip so is Cell Linky [] and The Opteron are all multicore chips, the diffrence (apart for the arch!) is the way VLIW's are feed to each of these. They are NOT paralell processors, paralellisam can be defined as the maintence of cache coherence, it is either inclusive (cray) or excluseive (rs6000), and requries a lot of bandwidth (local x-bar versus network). Where as parallel computers are not cache coherent and have a remote x-bar architechure, it all adds up to the same hypercube.
      • HT double clocks the Cache! so you have two cache's for the price of one!

        Huh? I thought hyperthreading gave you a second instruction pipeline so that when the first one doesn't provide enough instructions for the processors parallel execution units (which have been a feature since the pentium) instructions from a second thread can be executed with the spare power.

        paralellisam can be defined as the maintence of cache coherence, it is either inclusive (cray) or excluseive (rs6000), and requries a lot o
    • by Anonymous Coward
      G5 aren't multiple core CPU. However, IBM POWER4, which they are derived from, are dual core CPU.
  • by bluethundr (562578) * on Monday September 15, 2003 @10:01AM (#6963399) Homepage Journal
    In an age where clusters are becoming more prevalent for parallel computing I've often wondered where the parallel processor was. How about you?"

    Danny Hillis, the guy who founded ThinkingMachines designed a mchine called The Connection Machine [], (this story [] has a cooler, more sci-fi lookin' pic of the old beastie []) the central design philosophy was to achieve MASSIVE computing power through parallelism. It had 65,535 procs, each of lived on a wafer with dram thereon and a high bandwidth connection to up to (if I remember correctly) up to 4 other of the procs. Young sir Danny wrote a book on his exploits, [] well worth checking out (seemingly, it's been calling to me from my bookshelf for about a year now).

    And as someone pointed out, it seems we've seen this topic before. [] I'd have modded him up, [] (hint, hint) but I really like mentioning the connection machine where appropriate.
    • No, actually the CM-1 and CM-2 both placed 16
      1-bit bit-slice processors on each chip, so a
      65k node CM-2, for example, had 4k "beta" chips.
      You could program it as a 65kb-wide VLIW machine.
      But TMC quickly discovered that the bulk of sales
      opportunities were related to the Cold War, and
      for that purpose what was wanting was not the
      vast symbol-pushing capacity of the CM-1, but
      lots and lots of FLOPS. So they added FPUs.
      The FPUs used blocks of 32 1-bit CPUs like MMUs.

      This lead to enormous complications. In order
  • I'm just curious what will happen to the yields when they are busy cramming more cores onto a single die. Already they have to discard or down-rate many of the die on each wafer. What will happen when you have several cores, any of which might be faulty and ruin the remainder of the die.
    • Re:Die Yields (Score:2, Informative)

      by Adm1n (699849)
      Die verifacation will be modified to accomidate the core level verifacation prior to multiple cores bieng used. Since you are layering dies on one another they will be verified individually, then as a whole if they do not add up as individuals then off to the scrap heap. But that all depends on the number of cores and process. Keep in mind that currently design sofware limits are around 20K layers of interconnects, so if a core is only 20 layers of interconnects (not uncommon) it's only 100 layers if its sc
  • by AlecC (512609) <> on Monday September 15, 2003 @10:27AM (#6963661)
    This is very much not new. The basic idea has come and gone several times in the last twenty years, to my knowledge. Both SIMD and MIMD systems have been tried several timed. NCR even had one called the Grid, IIRC. Thinking machines (as seen on Jurassic Park I). The Inmos tranputer was designed for exactly this sort of connectivity. Intel had a development machine (?iWarp?) which tried to use it. And I am sure there were others that I don't recall. (As a user and fan of the transputer, I used to follow the field from a distance).

    But the problem has always been the programming. Ordinary software does not map very well onto these architectures. Certain specific problems can be mapped well onto them, which results in spectacular performance claims for the system. But generally such systems perform well only on those problems for which they were specifically designed.

    Communications is a common reason for failure. They scale very badly. In the early days of development, the first few processors have any-to-any connectivity, so the application will really fly. But since the connectivity rises as the square of the nuymber of processors, this cannot hold for very long. As soon as connectivity becomes limited, communications bottlenecks start to appear, and you get processors being held up either sending messages or waiting for them to arrive. Buffering (which many did not implement in their communications architectures) helps, but itm doesn't solve the problem. (A bit like lubrication - a small amount brings a considerable improvement in performance, but past a certain point, it only adds to costs).

    Another problem is load balancing. It is very difficult to design your system so you don't end up with most of the CPUs waiting for one, overloaded, CPU to finish its job. The only architectures which really worked were the farm model - a central dispatcher sends tasks to a "farm" of identical "workers", which therefore request work units as and when they need them. This means that the whole code for the system has to be loaded into each worker; not necessarily a killer at todays memory prices, but it would be nice to be more efficient. It also requires the task to be divisible into a vey large number of chunks, which can executed independently without too much communications. OK for large volume simulations etc., but a disaster for (say) database programming, image/voice recognition.

    It also doesn't help that not may people really think multi-threaded in their program design. Again, no-one that I know has a good Object Oriented multi-threading model. Current models are analagous to either pre-structured programming or early structured programming. Which means that people, reasonably, approach multi-threading as a dangerous monster to be approached only whan absolutely necessary, with great care, and if possible in flame-proof armour. For this sort of system to be much use we need a development which does to current threading what inheritance did to pre-OO languages: something that makes is so simple that, one over the hump of initial unfamiliarity, people use it all the time without even thinking about it.

    I designed one of the larger heterogenous transputer based system to ship - up to 100 transputers in 6 different roles. Load and communications balancing was a real hassle from the the day the system first started to work for real, and we were constantly tuning buffers, fiddling with routing algoirithms, movong bits or processing from this CPU to that to get the perfomance up. (Not to mention that inmos completely blew their second generation transputer, which we had been hoping would solve many of our problems).
    • Well why not use the systems and algorithims in place in commerical clusters like Mosix and OpenMosix as models and do simulations using current traffic queing theorey prior to any hardware design? Moshe Bar devloped OpenMosix as a cluster that operates by farming threads to the most available machine and the code is free. Using that model one can then develop a decent hardware platform that would be able to accomidate it's own monitroing system as part of the communications infrastructre.
    • Read the Article (Score:3, Insightful)

      by EnglishTim (9662)
      Read the article - this isn't the case that you've got a whole bunch of traditional processors and you try and divide the work between them. They're talking about the CPU itself being split into several smaller general units, so that each instruction gets excecuted by several of these units. The instructions are grouped together and then sent to the CPU in blocks. All the work for that block is then split between the units, taking into account any interdependencies. I suppose the closest thing to it would b
      • From the article: The prototypes will include four Trips processors, each containing 16 execution units laid out in a 4 x 4 grid. By the end of the decade, when 32-nanometer process technology is available, the goal is to have tens of processing units on a single die, delivering more than 1 trillion operations per second.

        You've got a whole bunch of non-traditional processors and you try and divide the work between them.

        The individual CPUs are, as you say, more flexible than current CPUs. Like hyperthread
  • project home page []

    They have some papers available there...

  • I read this as "Girl Processing" and was preparing a WTF? comment.

    Internal parsing error reported. :)

    I always thought the "single" processor paradigm has gone on way too long. I guess soon we'll be able to plug in multiple processors like we do ram.. But a question.
    (1/req)=(1/R1)+(1/r2)+(1/R3) ... Wouldn't it make more sence to run them in series? :) (jk)
  • ... As of August 14 seems like a terrific idea for electric power. Let's copy that fine idea of dependency on the perfect working for a system several states away.
  • Since the article doesn't really have to do with grid computing. Here are some real Grid Computing links.

    Globus Toolkit []
    LSF []
    openPBS []
    gridengine []
    OSCAR []
    ROCK MPP []
    maui []

    and last but not least: beowulf cluster []
  • Today I finally decided to get a clue about grid computing. So I went over to IBM developerWorks [], and followed the link to this "conceptual flyover []" article. Having developed enough interest, I decided to check out Foster's original paper called the Anatomy of the Grid []. Impressive!


    See also: Throughput Computing []

  • I am new at this. But i probably do know that if this is happening then someone is upgrading on this and so on and so on. See now we are getting into urgonomics. Man and Machine. We won't even need the internet. We will be the internet. Mankind will be the internet. With this grid processing, trillion bites and all. Imagine it being upgraded. I'm only 15 but i have amazing ideas about this stuff. I am a computer person. Any comments tell me. Yes i know i rambled but i need someone to tell
  • ... that parallel computers are prohibitively expensive, compared to a networked cluster, due to the hardware involved.
  • Are processors such as the one proposed by the end of the decade any threat to encryption products with small keys?

    I.e., how soon will the average processor available on the street be able to crack a 56-bit DES key? A 128 bit key? Will a 1024 bit key ever be crackable by brute force?

    We keep hearing that "all the kings computers and all the kings men" could never crack 1024 bits by brute force in millenia of trying. But does the continued exponential advancement of computing power threaten this state o

The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness. -- John Muir