Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Nov 2006 17:13 UTC, submitted by Uzak Ajays
Thread beginning with comment 184952
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2006-04-21
The original article made it sound like standard PCs were used with normal networking equipment, in which case it wouldn't really be a supercomputer in my eyes.
So what you are saying, is that not all computers on top500 are supercomputers?
What matters is the types of applications a supercomputer needs to be super at. I guess a lot of money have been wasted on fancy networks
just to be on top500, while the real applications are embarrassingly parallel.