Microsoft just released Windows HPC Server 2008, with support for thousands of processors. A NYTimes article takes a closer look at Microsoft's ambitions in supercomputing, and current trends in the HPC field, where Microsoft has almost no current presence. Microsoft's strategy is probably a recognition that with the price of high-powered hardware decreasing, many new companies and organizations are finding application for high-powered systems, and they hope to be able to take a portion of that new business using people's familiarity with the Windows brand as a foot in the door.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:2005-07-24
Member since:2006-01-12
Firstly it is well productized unlike most Unix solutions. It has Microsoft behind so it gives some clarity of support for future. It's based on Windows so most people are familiar with UI and basic stuff. Keep mind that most HPC solutions are targeted on academic level, this isn't. Microsoft is trying to get business users that doesn't have similiar solutions but are maybe thinking to move.
Edited 2008-09-23 07:46 UTC
Member since:2005-07-06
*Windows* in the HPC area?
Because they are pragmatic and what the best tool for the job? Now I'm not saying Windows is the best tool now obviously, but who knows what the future will hold. Microsoft have a lot of very smart people and a lot of resources, so if they really want to make a top of the line HPC OS I have little doubt that they could.
I've worked with Linux on small render clusters before, and chose it over Windows because it was faster, quicker to deploy and easier to set up and manage. Where I to make the choice today I'd probably again go for Linux. Where I to make the choice in a couple of years I'd quite happily take a look at Microsofts latest offering and compare it Linux before deciding.
There was a time when windows on the server was utterly unheard of and they managed to break into that market. I have no doubt that if they really want the HPC market they have the technical expertise and resources to break into it.
Member since:2006-01-02
It's hard to argue with free, but do companies deploy clusters without a support contract or something for the OS they run on their hardware? I doubt it... As I recall, the revenue generated by companies selling cluster solutions is not insignificant, so the costs of today's clusters are probably not too cheap for the customers.
If you're doing compute bound or even IO bound work the 'bloat' of the OS that you complain about doesn't really matter too much. In fact, if your work is purely CPU bound the OS really doesn't matter at all for the performance of your workload unless you've made a mistake.
There are a few features that Linux had for HPC which Windows lacked, like rDMA for example, but the HPC group seems to have made the appropriate drivers for that. On the other hand, Windows is likely to have an easier management, distributed debugging, and monitoring story than Linux. We'll see how the competition ends up going...
Member since:
2007-05-12
With Linux, BSD etc absolutely dominating the HPC area
(and with their robustness, flexibility, performance and
zero cost) - *why on earth* would *anyone* opt for
*Windows* in the HPC area?
It has no track-record behind it. It is expensive. It
is utterly fragile, bloated, and is certainly a lot
less flexible than any of the Unixes.