Another cnet article bashing apple

With Apple's XGrid technology, it becomes very easy to set up your own cluster of computers. The article even mentions this.

So yeah, while it would be traditionally difficult to install and setup a cluster of nodes to make a super computer, XGrid does make that job a lot simpler. Thus I'm not sure what the author is alluding to by these 'hidden' costs. The example he gives of carting 19 tonnes of computer parts is basically manual labour. Add that to just setting up a the computers.

Seriously, how much is that even going to cost? This CNet author needs to get his head examined.
 
pjeski said:
Uh, the article mentioned "hundreds of volunteer hours". But let's give it two man-years (4000 hours), and I'll pay them $100 an hour. That is still only $400,000 (500 - 600K with benefits), pretty paltry compared to the 5.2 million the hardware cost.
Click to expand...

I guarantee you Dell, HP, Cray, etc charge quite a bit more than 100 dollars per hour to put together a super computer, and then to test it out extensively, etc.
 
Viro said:
With Apple's XGrid technology, it becomes very easy to set up your own cluster of computers. The article even mentions this.

So yeah, while it would be traditionally difficult to install and setup a cluster of nodes to make a super computer, XGrid does make that job a lot simpler. Thus I'm not sure what the author is alluding to by these 'hidden' costs. The example he gives of carting 19 tonnes of computer parts is basically manual labour. Add that to just setting up a the computers.
Click to expand...

XGrid makes making small clusters simple. XGrid is not usable for a cluster that has 100 different nodes, let alone 1,000 nodes. Clustering technology doesn't scale very well, what works for 5 hosts won't work for 500, different technologies are used.

This is not even to mention the environmental factors. IMHO what they did at VaTech for facilities is just as impressive, it not more so, then the cluster itself. They basically designed the data center to be one huge fridge cooled with copper piping. Powering, wiring, cooling, etc is a huge cost. Datacenter design is a very challanging area when you start getting into large scales.

Also, they did more then just have volunteers putting togeather machines, they had companies writing drivers specifically for them. They weren't paying to have custom drivers written, the were being done because the company that has the hardware was sponsoring it, and they got their payment in free PR.

Brian
 
In a better light, CNET has a story of six people who comment on their three favorite technology devices. 5 out of the 6 listed their iBook or PowerBook as one of the three. Only one PC laptop was mentioned.
 
It cost $5.2 million to buy the Virginia Tech gear, but that figure doesn't include what the school says were "hundreds of volunteered hours of Virginia Tech faculty, staff and students to help set up the 19.25 tons of computers, routers and other equipment."
Click to expand...

Does it say anywhere that the $350 million spent for the #1 computer, or that the $215 million spent on the #2 computer includes the cost of facilities, labor hours, and installation costs? Anyone know?
 
They might charge more than that (and I doubt it), but they don't pay more than that. $100/hr is $200K/yr. Pretty high paying for an IT job.


superfula said:
I guarantee you Dell, HP, Cray, etc charge quite a bit more than 100 dollars per hour to put together a super computer, and then to test it out extensively, etc.
Click to expand...
 
I am pleased that VT was able to put together this cluster, and that it was ranked very high and that the published price was significantly lower than others. I am impressed that the G5 was even capable of being clustered this way. However, I do not feel that this is a marketable solution by Apple - In fact I do not think Apple will market this type of setup. Apple will acknowledge it is possible though - and they should - It says so much about the individual machine and its platform. Apple's xgrid is at least interesting - 'clustering for the rest of us' I suppose.
 
kerrazyjoe said:
In fact I do not think Apple will market this type of setup.
Click to expand...

You're right! The same way Apple have been underselling the Xserve.

I think Apple have been cautious because they wanted to see the reaction first. Imagine that Apple had a list of companies that would have bought the Xserve come what may. Now you have a test bed for a new system.

Once these people are happy with the system, they're familiar with the setup and Apple have ironed out the bugs over for the second year, _then_ Apple start to market the Xserve -- which is what they're doing, now.

Why go striding into a completely new market shouting the odds and parading the new system and have it fall to bits the moment it's switched on?

kerrazyjoe said:
Apple will acknowledge it is possible though - and they should - It says so much about the individual machine and its platform. Apple's xgrid is at least interesting - 'clustering for the rest of us' I suppose.
Click to expand...

Apparently, Apple would be quite happy to use the Big Mac as a template for other customers. But Apple really wouldn't go putting good marketing dollars into a market that is highly exclusive.

The wise money is on Apple just saying: 'Hey! That was cool. We'll sell you the system, the cabling and send down a couple of guys to put it all together, but just don't go expecting the next Apple News to be offering a built-to-order terrflop cluster at the Apple Store...'
 
We're not alone, guys:

A week or so ago, C|Net posted an editorial about the System X Supercomputer. The Editorial itself is full of fear, uncertainty and doubt, and smacks of someone who clearly has an agenda and hasn't done their research. Fear not, today Alan Graham takes them to task correcting all sorts of general falsifications on the part of C|Net. What's the moral to this story? Do your research. Write what's true.
Click to expand...

For the article, go to MacSlash and scroll down a bit...
 
octane: That was a great article. Mr. Graham was right on with his analysis. He tore c|net a new one with the facts. :D This article should be shown on all the Macintosh news sites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top