> In response to Jeff Layton's article on using the cloud for HPC (link > below), there's been a discussion on whether there should be a new term > used in this case to replace 'HPC', such as 'research computing' which > Jeff used in his articles. I say no. We just need to reconsider how we > define HPC. For example, my definition of HPC is as follows, which I > often use when giving introductory presentations on HPC.
Interestingly I caught up for coffee with Miron on Friday. He and I would argue "throughput" http://www.hpcwire.com/hpcwire/2013-03-29/htc_big_data_and_god_particle.html I'm with him, you and heck anyone that says we need to do *more* computing. More is the important thing, and the more you do, the better you need to do it. I agree with all comers on this topic for sure! The semantics put about by the "weirdo beardo's" back when it was cool to have a monster expensive single system image running some sort of proprietary pseudo unix have all but gone thankfully. We live in a new world now, and the "machines" folks are putting together look very different. Take TACC for example, Stampede is a wonderful example of throughput, performance and vectorization though Phi all wrapped up with a bow around it. Compare that with what Vogels' team are doing, and that with Zuckerberg's folks - it's all just computing at an amazingly monster scale to me. So here it is, a new name for what we do.... H{P,T}(R,A,T)C Or maybe just "C" - it's all just *Computing* after all 'innit? ;-) j. _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, [email protected] sponsored by Penguin Computing To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
