Re: Cluster computing drawbacks

In article <dc8k4g$bic$4@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Randy <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Greg Lindahl wrote:
>> In article <87oe8ovf3r.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> Ketil Malde <ketil+news@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>Parallelizing it doesn't pose any challenges, it doesn't (at least not
>>>in most cases) require million-dollar top-500 machines, in fact, it
>>>doesn't even require a fast interconnect.
>>
>> There are plenty of million-dollar loosely-coupled clusters on the
>> top-500 list that run embarrassingly parallel apps.
>
>Sure. It's the *other* apps that they run embarassingly badly. ;-}

Yes. A long time back, I got flamed for pointing out that postcards
were a perfectly good form of communication for the MOST embarrassingly
parallel applications, and had actually been used for the purpose!
'Tis true, sir ....

There is a gradation of requirements from there right up to the ones
that scale only if the interconnect latency is comparable to the
local memory latency.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
.