With the first beta for Microsoft’s upcoming Windows Server 2003 Compute Cluster Solution barely out the door, the development team is already thinking seriously about features and functionality designed to make the next version of the product even easier to use and manage than its Linux competitor.
Microsoft Hones High-Performance Offering
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
A cheap super-computer. Have they considered not doing a per-processor — per-node license method and considered a unlimited cluster size license?
Buying 16 machines with 6GB of RAM in each is expensive enough without the added 10% cost of an expensive OS… And most people buying beowulfs, researchers, are actually a bit strapped for cash.
Now, of course, people with thousand node clusters could care less; they’ve got money..
How does one “optimize for security?” Really, that’s just like two fad words that don’t make a great deal of sense together… How about, “prepared for security issues” or even “readied for hackers” or “improved security.”
I’m not really criticizing here, just making fun of the language…
And the real reason to use MPI: Because if you didn’t, no one, and I mean 0, would buy in. Why? Because research code rarely gets rewritten….
Now, of course, a few Microsoft only add-ons…..
And what happens when they will find out that the virus writers have party time with the new windows party?
this is all Microsoft does now… talk!
all we hear are headlines like “exciting new featues coming up” or “Windows to include or improve this or that”.
but, nothing ever gets delivered properly if at all.
remember, Microsoft does not care about the quality of their products…
they only care about marketing and hype.
remember, Microsoft does not care about the quality of their products…
they only care about marketing and hype.
Why don’t you ask the people there then. I think that likely 2/3 of the people working at Microsoft genuinely want to build a good product that changes users’ lives for the better. However, with shareholders to please, and marketing making engineering decisions, coupled with a couple of management duds (Vista,) Microsoft has shown itself to be capable of releasing sub-par products. Not that all of their products are mind you. Windows 2003 Server, with all of its warts in some areas, has proven to be a reliable, secure operating system.
Additionally, Microsoft employs a strategy where the first release is seen as a marketing and research investment that their deep pockets can suck up in anticipation of making up later. Then, after they have established themselves as a player on the market, they slowly add features and improve their product until suddenly, not necessarily on technical merits, but because their products were designed to work together, they have worked their way into places with existing Microsoft installations (many places.) Then after negotiation, and several shrewd business decisions, they have cemented their hold in a new market.
Apologies in advance for bringing up Linux, but…
This can only be good for Linux, because like it or not, competition drives each to be better. The only things that matter for linux (in the foreseeable future,) are ironing out some of the desktop environment wrinkles (not by sweeping them under the carpet,) and reaching a critical threshold where it is good sense for hardware manufacturers to support their devices running under Linux. The time will come for those two things. Good things are happening in computing nowadays. We just have to make sure we don’t let too much bad happen. (I have DRM and patents and the DMCA and similar laws in other countries in mind.)
thebackwash,
Microsoft employees don’t call the shots, but I do agree that certain MS business practices can be good for Linux.
However, my point is simple…
I would rather have the OS that runs my workstations and servers be built upon a foundation of solid programing, not marketing.
I think the problem lies in the fact that Microsoft has always had the best and brightest geeks in the past. And they had some great new ideas about how to do things (and I think most of them were obsessed with speed, other than Dave Cutler).
Well, they’ve learned now where they were wrong *cough* centralized setting storage in a binary format, disparate monolithic architectures like explorer *cough*. But they have to stay compatible…
Where other OS’s have built off the successes of the past. Sometimes imitation really isn’t a bad thing… You simply can’t innovate everything, you’re bound to mess up something; so you might as well innovate what you know and imitate what you don’t.
I took a course in Windows clustering at the Cornell Theory Center. I just had to laugh when the instructor described the local cluster of 512 machines:
all with IE and Windows Media Player installed by default. Why on earth would anyone want a computational cluster with WMP on each and every machine?
IE at least has its uses in web-based job submission, but WMP?
I don’t think that MS quite gets it!
… And now let’s contrast that to the typical Linux distribution: 4-5 media players, 2-3 browsers, 2-3 e-mail clients, 2 volume control applets, 4 text editors …
But hey, disk space is cheap, right?
… And now let’s contrast that to the typical Linux distribution: 4-5 media players, 2-3 browsers, 2-3 e-mail clients, 2 volume control applets, 4 text editors …
But hey, disk space is cheap, right?
Your ability to demonstrate your own stupidity is beyond compare.
Yuor Ehnglesh is suppa!
…And now let’s contrast that to the typical Linux distribution: 4-5 media players, 2-3 browsers, 2-3 e-mail clients, 2 volume control applets, 4 text editors …
Ah, answering an MS case in _fact_ with some imaginary tosh about what a Linux cluster installation would consist of …
I don’t know anybody that runs a Linux cluster using Ubuntu, Linspire, or Mandriva. Do you?
I read some of your site. You seem to have some knowledge, but every anti-Linux post you place here is neither well thought out nor relevant. It’s a shame really.
I don’t know anybody that runs a Linux cluster using Ubuntu, Linspire, or Mandriva. Do you?
Well Mandriva offers a clustering version for HPC:
http://www.mandriva.com/clustering
I’m sure it doesn’t install 4 different video players though
>… And now let’s contrast that to the typical Linux
>distribution: 4-5 media players, 2-3 browsers, 2-3
>e-mail clients, 2 volume control applets, 4 text editors
Not in a default server install. Only in a desktop install. And BTW, since when was choice bad?
Choice is bad when all of the choices are poor. A “default” server install of most modern Linuxes is 3x more bloated than a default Server 2003 install.
I really liked your comment about:
“Choice is bad if all the choices are poor” which is quite true about Linux. People are using Windows because they can’t find a better Linux distro even though there is *too much* choice in Linux.
A la?
I’d bet the running services list on Win2K3 is four times longer than RHEL4 (and it’s the worst on # of services).
So what, pray tell, do you mean by it being more bloated?
“Choice is bad when all of the choices are poor. A “default” server install of most modern Linuxes is 3x more bloated than a default Server 2003 install.”
This is 100% false.
People, this guy “Linux Is Poo” is a fake and a troll. Nothing more. Don’t get sucked into his posts. He knows nothing of real technology.
Here’s the facts…
1) his website – http://tomchu.com/ runs linux. see here… http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?host=http%3A%2F%2Ftomchu…..
2) he is vulgar and clueless
3) never has a valid argument, he only complains and rattles his sword to get attention or provoke a reaction.
ignore him or read his posts for a good laugh.
FYI
The difference between Windows & Linux is that in Linux, you can easily remove or disable the “extra” browsers and media players without trashing the OS, as well as disabling services you don’t need.
While Windows Media Player and codecs can be easily removed (which I’ve done on all my Windows systems), it’s not so easy completely removing IE.
In Linux, you don’t have to install all the junk you get with the distro. In Windows, you don’t have an option – you have to rip out the garbage AFTER installing the OS, and pray you don’t mess up the registry too bad.
I use a commercial Windows de-gunker, which works really well for getting rid of stuff like WMP, outlook express, address book, netmeeting, notepad, wordpad, paint, games & accessories, etc.
Look into nLite. It allows you to remove/customize Windows PRIOR to installation, by customizing the installation sources and setup files themselves.
Actually, I use XPlite/2000lite.
Linux Is Poo…Gee, its you again.
The well known Linux hater and a writer from Neoseeker.
Another anti-Linux post?…How unsurprising.
Hiding behind the smoke and mirrors of Microsoft related articles again?
Let me guess your theme…
You love Windows and FreeBSD.
BTW, your neoseeker articles SUCK.
It’s a pity that every time a Microsoft related article is posted here it always ends up being an excuse to flame Microsoft and sing the praises on Linux. Mind you, anything pro-Linux inevitably attract the “BSD is better” crowd..!
“Linux Is Poo” really does himself no favours. It’s a pity he needs to try and hide behind such a stupid username. If you’ve got an opinion then at least have the courage to put your name to it…
I agree about the flaming. Every single Microsoft article you see people talking trash about MS/Windows no matter what the article is about.
Seems almost any time I view a strictly linux article, there is almost no flaming, and actual discussion.
Of course, linux fans like to deny this, but it’s clear to anyone that follows the articles.
You’re one to talk about hiding behind smoke and mirrors. 🙂
Thanks for reading my articles though. I welcome radically differing opinions on them.
nLite is cool but I doubt it’s legal to mess with windows install. For sure you will loose support. And besides although it makes removing IE and other components possible it still does nothing to protect you from screwing the system up (beside showing a big fat warning).
a beowulf cluster of BSODs…
Would any serious researchers even consider a windows cluster?!? I could just imagine having to reboot 512 machine every two weeks for patches. Or maybe Active Directory freaks out on half the machines and they no longer talk.
Windows is a desktop OS trying to be something it is not. The windows IPC model is much to flawed for it to even compare with a *nix system for parallel computing. The system is technically inferior in design. The only way that windows will be a viable server platform for serious computing (not just a place to store your .doc files) will be if windows becomes much more unix like. Of course, you can already see this happening with MSH and some other more recent features.
Won’t it be ironic when windows server turns back into Xenix.
DOWNLOAD Windows Vista:
http://windows.czweb.org
I’ve just seen a demonstration of Windows Server 2003 Cluster Solution during Wolfram Technology Conference.
I guess it’s still quite broken, because the technicians spent half a day trying to get it to (partially) run. It’s only in a beta stage, so we should not be too harsh criticizing their solution.
“nLite is cool but I doubt it’s legal to mess with windows install. For sure you will loose support.”
I run Windows 2000 on my machines. What support???
And show me why it’s not legal to disable services on your own computer.