Skip to comments.
IBM explores 67.1m-core computer for running entire internet
The Register ^
| 5 February 2008
| Ashlee Vance
Posted on 02/06/2008 12:29:12 PM PST by ShadowAce
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-73 next last
1
posted on
02/06/2008 12:29:19 PM PST
by
ShadowAce
To: rdb3; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; GodGunsandGuts; CyberCowboy777; Salo; Bobsat; JosephW; ...
2
posted on
02/06/2008 12:29:46 PM PST
by
ShadowAce
(Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
To: ShadowAce
Assume it can be done. It won’t be done since the Internet is supposed to be a survivable system and that means dispersal of pieces and parts not coagulating everything into one box in one building.
3
posted on
02/06/2008 12:31:49 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(oil--the world currency)
To: ShadowAce
But can it play Chess?
4
posted on
02/06/2008 12:32:25 PM PST
by
Condor51
(I will NOT vote for McInsane, ever -- even if Waterboarded!)
To: ShadowAce
67 million of them will be dedicated to porn.
5
posted on
02/06/2008 12:34:03 PM PST
by
John Jorsett
(scam never sleeps)
To: ShadowAce
With today’s internet, you need to cut five major cables in order to blackout a country like Iran. In the future, you’ll be able to cut one cable and blackout the world.
To: ShadowAce
>> In theory, you can connect up to 16,384 racks, providing up to 67.1m cores with 32PB of memory. That’ll get some work done.
Now that would make a fairly respectable Quake box. :)
To: ShadowAce
. In theory, you can connect up to 16,384 racks, providing up to 67.1m cores with 32PB of memory. That'll get some work done. Each rack boasts IO bandwidth of 640Gb/s, which puts our theoretical system at 10.4Pb/s.
Fine, now show me the backplane and internet backbone that runs at over 100 GB/sec. Networking is not nearly advanced enough to centralize the internet.
8
posted on
02/06/2008 12:37:29 PM PST
by
Centurion2000
(su - | chown -740 us ./base | kill -9 | cd / | rm -r)
To: Condor51
F@ck chess, can it play Doom?
9
posted on
02/06/2008 12:37:51 PM PST
by
CarrotAndStick
(The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
To: ShadowAce
IBM still exists? Weren’t they bought by the Chinese Lenovo?
10
posted on
02/06/2008 12:38:04 PM PST
by
Jedi Master Pikachu
( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
To: ShadowAce
IBM's researchers have proposed tweaking the Blue Gene systems to run today's most popular web applications such as Linux, Apache, MySQL and Ruby on Rails. Who writes this stuff?
11
posted on
02/06/2008 12:38:47 PM PST
by
Egon
("If all your friends were named Cliff, would you jump off them??" - Hugh Neutron)
To: Jedi Master Pikachu
Only the laptop and PC assembly division; not their core technologies.
12
posted on
02/06/2008 12:39:07 PM PST
by
CarrotAndStick
(The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
To: ShadowAce
I bet SkyNet is behind this plan. Go get Sarah Connor
To: ShadowAce
Each rack boasts IO bandwidth of 640Gb/s, 640 Gb/s ought to be enough for anybody.
14
posted on
02/06/2008 12:39:35 PM PST
by
Izzy Dunne
(Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
To: ShadowAce
I bet SkyNet is behind this plan. Go get em Sarah Connor
To: ShadowAce
Do you still have to code 1401 overlay modules? Am I showing my age?
16
posted on
02/06/2008 12:39:59 PM PST
by
duckman
(I refuse to use a tag line...I mean it.)
To: vikingd00d
Now that would make a fairly respectable Quake boxTalk about bringing the network to it's knees on your lunch break ...
17
posted on
02/06/2008 12:40:16 PM PST
by
tx_eggman
("they want to be judged on their intentions, not their results" - libtards official motto)
To: ShadowAce
To: John Jorsett
67 million of them will be dedicated to porn. I think that's the Ruby on Rails stuff.
19
posted on
02/06/2008 12:42:14 PM PST
by
decimon
To: ShadowAce
So, IBM wants to angle Blue Gene boxes at the web software jobs, believing it can run numerous applications on a single box at a lower cost than a cluster. IBM has been very successful in implementing mainframe-based systems like this for IT/Help/Multi-user applications for a number of large, widely-spread companies. I've got a friend who has been doing this sort of stuff for several Canadian companies.
For IBM, it sounds like a scale-up project, rather than having to develop any particularly new techology.
Look for them to succeed big with this....
20
posted on
02/06/2008 12:45:12 PM PST
by
r9etb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-73 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson