I find that 486 100's are currently the most cost effective. At about $50/box
that is $500/ghz + networking.
On Thu, 01 Apr 1999, Walter B. Ligon III wrote:
>--------
>Chris,
>
>This reply is STRICTLY opinion on my part (please, no processor wars).
>In my opinion, if your application has a lot of parallelism (as I suspect
>given you are proposing a 100 node machine) then you are better off using
>Intel processors, strictly because they have the most market support, and
>thus are cheaper, easier to get, have more software available, and will be
>easier to upgrade in the future (unless Intel decides to keep changing the
>package every year <sigh>).
>
>If you are already planning to use Myrinet, then the communication bandwidth
>isn't really an issue related to the CPUs. Myrinet can be scaled quite
>well with the number of processors up to a rather large number. Thus I am
>suggesting that 200 P2's are probably a better bet than 100 Alphas at the
>same cost (just an example, I'm not suggesting this is the actual cost ratio).
>Plus NEXT year it will be easier to upgrade to the latest P2 (P3, P4, etc.)
>than to upgrade the Alphas (considering ALL hardware AND software issues).
>
>Being a "dyed-in-the-wool" Beowulf person, I tend to believe that the best
>approach is to use a larger number of the most cost effective devices you
>can get. Cost effective including all aspects of hardware and software, not
>just CPU price and speed. For better or for worse, this is currently Intel.
>Your mileage may vary.
>
>Walt
>
>--
>Dr. Walter B. Ligon III
>Associate Professor
>ECE Department
>Clemson University
--
-Casioqv
EZ Computer Products
http://ezcp.cjb.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Consulting * Networking * TCP/IP
Appletalk * Netatalk * IPX/SPX
Rabbit Software * Custom Computers
Web Design * Hosting * Java Scripts
Robotics * Microcomputers * Atmel
Custom Programming * Linux * Win
Secure Servers * Apache * Firewalls
SCSI * IRAID * NetDisks * RAI
