If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Roadrunner Supercomputer using 12,960 CELL Processors Hits 1 PetaFlop ?(1000 TeraFlops) of double-precision FP Performance
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Cydrome Leader wrote in part:
I find it unlikely they still don't know how nuclear weapons work, especially considering they're mature technology and they've been around for decades. A two-stage thermonuclear warhead is a surprisingly complex device -- look up Teller-Ulam. To work properly, the design has to transfer enough light energy to ignite and burn the fusion secondary before the fission primary shock waves disassemble the device. There's _lots_ to simulate here in at least 2D over many timeslices. Yes, we know how to make them go bang. Just follow the recipe. But we don't always know the critical parts of that recipe, and what parts we could change. In general, the whole field of Finite-Element computation is still short of cycles and can swallow everything available. Multi-CPU clusters are still being built. Imagine being able to simulate vehicle collisions -- designers would be able to determine where metal could be added or other changes to improve occupant survival. -- Robert |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Roadrunner Supercomputer using 12,960 CELL Processors Hits 1PetaFlop ?(1000 TeraFlops) of double-precision FP Performance
Robert Redelmeier wrote:
Multi-CPU clusters are still being built. Imagine being able to simulate vehicle collisions -- designers would be able to determine where metal could be added or other changes to improve occupant survival. No need to imagine this: We have operated a Linux cluster for nearly 5 years now that Hydro (the Aluminium company) uses to simulate the energy transfer/structure deformation that happens when a (sports) car using one of their aluminium frames with integrated "crash box" structures get into an accident. Yes, it is a _lot_ cheaper than running real crash tests, even though you still have to verify the theoretical results before the car will be certified for road use. Terje -- - "almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching" |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Roadrunner Supercomputer using 12,960 CELL Processors Hits 1PetaFlop ?(1000 TeraFlops) of double-precision FP Performance
On Jun 13, 11:10 am, Terje Mathisen
wrote: Yes, it is a _lot_ cheaper than running real crash tests, even though you still have to verify the theoretical results before the car will be certified for road use. Cost isn't the real advantage. You can't instrument an experiment the way that you can a simulation. The disadvantage, of course, is that you have mountains of information and sometimes no clue as to what to do with it. The science, the insight, the talent, and everything else worthwhile are in finding those clues and not in the petaflops or exabytes. Robert. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
was: Roadrunner Supercomputer
On Jun 13, 3:33 pm, (Eugene Miya) wrote:
In article , Robert Myers wrote: The disadvantage, of course, is that you have mountains of information data, not info I hesitated at the word data, which is the word that computer scientists would use. Outside the world of computers, the distinction between data and predictions is not to be trifled with, especially if you're in the same room with someone who actually measures things. Theoreticians have a way of wanting to keep their work separate from what comes out of computers, as if theory could do anything without computation, automatic or otherwise. Robert. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
was: Roadrunner Supercomputer
In article ,
Robert Myers wrote: On Jun 13, 11:10 am, Terje Mathisen wrote: Yes, it is a _lot_ cheaper than running real crash tests, even though you still have to verify the theoretical results before the car will be certified for road use. You want to catch potential problems in advance. The normal cost of locating an error later in a life cycle holds for cars as well as software. Cost isn't the real advantage. You can't instrument an experiment the way that you can a simulation. Some one noted the cost of crash test dummies has gone way up (like 5 orders of magnitude) as we learn more about crashes. They are no longer mere mannequins. They get filled with cameras, accelerators, etc. The firm which makes them see a bright future. Car companies don't take this cost lightly anymore. A sim has to compete and complement this advance in instrumentation. The disadvantage, of course, is that you have mountains of information data, not info and sometimes no clue as to what to do with it. The science, the insight, the talent, and everything else worthwhile are in finding those clues and not in the petaflops or exabytes. That's Hamming's Insight. -- |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Roadrunner Supercomputer using 12,960 CELL Processors Hits 1 PetaFlop ?(1000 TeraFlops) of double-precision FP Performance
In article ,
Robert Redelmeier wrote: In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Cydrome Leader wrote in part: I find it unlikely they still don't know how nuclear weapons work, You'd be amazed. I was just at a funeral in Livermore yesterday. especially considering they're mature technology and eee. Hardly. they've been around for decades. That's part of the problem. A two-stage thermonuclear warhead is a surprisingly complex device -- look up Teller-Ulam. To work properly, the design has to transfer enough light energy to ignite and burn the fusion secondary before the fission primary shock waves disassemble the device. There's _lots_ to simulate here in at least 2D over many timeslices. Complex yes, but that's not the problem. The unclassified problem is stockpile stewartship. Look that up not Teller Ulam. Yes, we know how to make them go bang. Just follow the recipe. But we don't always know the critical parts of that recipe, and what parts we could change. In general, the whole field of Finite-Element computation is still short of cycles and can swallow everything available. Multi-CPU clusters are still being built. Imagine being able to simulate vehicle collisions -- designers would be able to determine where metal could be added or other changes to improve occupant survival. The problem is that regardless of how any one feels about weapons, WWII introduced a substance on the face of the planet we don't understand. Rather than suggest that one buy or borrow a copy of the Pu-metallurgy book, J. Bernstein has a new book titled "94". There's also a slightly older simpler IEEE Spectrum article. You can't use common sense to deduce how it will behave. It's not stable like other substances in common every day experience. We are only now learning how it ages (poorly). Weaponized Pu is constantly degrading. Most people haven't a clue that these weapons have known shelf-lives (amazingly short before they requirement maintenance). And you can't merely think about what's in your nation's stockpile. You have to think about the stability of the other guys' (note plural possessive) stockpile. I once asked an old boss of mine if he had ever designed a dud. * He was a new boss at the time, and I didn't have a clearance (still don't). And he answered: Technology walks a very fine line. Years later he admitted Yes. He had. But that didn't stop others from using his code which went into the bunker buster in current use. He's proud of that. * Why the design of this I'll likely never know. I can think of people who would know, but the vast majority of the semi-interested public are too biased by early WWII weapons history to reason rationally and consequentally have no Need to Know. I don't expect any further answer from him so he can retain his Q-clearance. -- |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Roadrunner Supercomputer using 12,960 CELL Processors Hits 1PetaFlop ?(1000 TeraFlops) of double-precision FP Performance
On Jun 11, 3:36 pm, Cydrome Leader wrote:
I wonder what they really do with these computers. Well, once there was a company in Milpitas, CA named Cydrome. While they didn't make a super fast machine, they made a comparatively fast machine for a short period of time. They studied the market. It's mostly long running sims, but there's the odd occsional Ask Marilyn question which some one runs using a programmable calculator. I find it unlikely they still don't know how nuclear weapons work, especially considering they're mature technology and they've been around for decades. Oh, you were the guy to ask that question. It's not mature. In article , Robert Myers wrote: Try these google searchs: ~simulation site:lanl.gov ~simulation site:llnl.gov That's 1 set of apps. Those are merely the publically known/released examples. I get over 30000 page hits. If you surf around and even ponder how to zero in on the nuclear weapons work, you will have your answer. Excepting Cary's and Hanson's, and DOE funded sites, not much depth in most. You have to get on the classified network to see current problems. Question: We've discovered a warehouse full of Viet Nam-era artillery shells. Should we just ship them to a war zone, or count on them working in case of war? I mean, we *do* know how artillery shells work, don't we? You realize that about 10% will be duds. -- |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
was: Roadrunner Supercomputer
In article , Robert Myers writes: | | Theoreticians have a way of wanting to keep their work separate from | what comes out of computers, as if theory could do anything without | computation, automatic or otherwise. Hmm. How many pure mathematicians do you know? Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
was: Roadrunner Supercomputer
On Jun 13, 4:21 pm, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
In article ,Robert Myers writes: | | Theoreticians have a way of wanting to keep their work separate from | what comes out of computers, as if theory could do anything without | computation, automatic or otherwise. Hmm. How many pure mathematicians do you know? Picky, picky. I know a few. The boundary is irrevocably blurred, even in pure mathematics. Robert. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
was: Roadrunner Supercomputer
In article , Robert Myers writes: | | | Theoreticians have a way of wanting to keep their work separate from | | what comes out of computers, as if theory could do anything without | | computation, automatic or otherwise. | | Hmm. How many pure mathematicians do you know? | | Picky, picky. I know a few. ... Well, what do you expect? :-) Yes, I agree that some pure mathematicians are known to use computers! Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
IBM to build Opteron-Cell hybrid supercomputer of 1 PetaFlop performance | [email protected] | AMD x86-64 Processors | 27 | September 15th 06 01:22 PM |
IBM to build Opteron-Cell hybrid supercomputer of 1 PetaFlop performance | AirRaid | General | 1 | September 8th 06 09:48 PM |
IBM to build Opteron-Cell hybrid supercomputer of 1 PetaFlop performance | AirRaid | AMD x86-64 Processors | 1 | September 8th 06 09:48 PM |
IBM to build Opteron-Cell hybrid supercomputer of 1 PetaFlop performance | [email protected] | General | 0 | September 6th 06 02:00 AM |
IBM to build Opteron-Cell hybrid supercomputer of 1 PetaFlop performance | [email protected] | AMD x86-64 Processors | 0 | September 6th 06 02:00 AM |