Roy Schestowitz came up with this when s/he headbutted the keyboard a moment
ago in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
> __/ [ Jim ] on Wednesday 21 February 2007 08:11 \__
>
>> Roy Schestowitz came up with this when s/he headbutted the keyboard a
>> moment ago in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>>
>>> Trio of x86 SBCs targets embedded Linux
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | Lippert Embedded Computers recently released three new
>>> | single-board computers (SBCs) with support for embedded
>>> | Linux. One is an EPIC format SBC based on Pentium/Celeron
>>> | M processors, while the other two are PC/104-Plus modules
>>> | supporting a choice of Pentium M or Geode LX800 processors.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3479662920.html
>>
>> mmm... sounds nice.
>>
>> Only issue I have with SBCs is the price tag - VIA Nehemiah boards are
>> still up there in the Â100 range, but they are bloody quick boards, and
>> very, very energy efficient - I have a 1GHz Epia M which consumes less
than
>> ten Watts, that includes the flashIDE and the half Gig of RAM. Probably
>> explains why they're so sought after by extreme car modders. I'd just
like
>> a cluster of 'em. Fifteen units in an eight inch high rack case. Yum.
>
> You could probably get them cheaper in large orders. Better yet, get some
> package that already contains an array of these working in parallel. Make
> video processing more energy-efficient... speaking of which, DRM raises
> power/battery consumption significantly. When I come to think of it, Vista
> will not only encourage waste (old hardware), but will also lead to
> increased electrocity consumption. I guess XGL with the GPUs isn't any
> better though.
>
> Waste is the new "cool" in a world that gets too much waste to sustain its
> climate. Mind-boggling...
>
Yeah, tho I can't see SBC units dropping much in price with the advent of
Vista. Particularly given that these boards aren't geared toward anything
like as bloaty as XP, never mind Vista - they're designed for light,
embedded, and single-purpose applications such as in-car entertainment,
home automation, file/webservers and the like. Running a full-on GUI would
tax the processors to destruction, and that's not what I had in mind.
Clustering is about splitting the load among x number of processors running
in parallel. Do the math, a dozen P4 processors would swallow a kilowatt
and a half, and that's not including extra storage (we're on bus-powered
GPU, one hard drive and one optical). An SBC in a cluster would consume ten
Watts (or less, let's just say for the sake of argument, ten) per node;
1500W would not only power a substantial stack of network gear (let's say
eight switches at 60W apiece), but also a full rack of nodes. 8x60=480W for
the switchgear leaves a kilowatt for nodes, that's 100 nodes. (given that
you can run a cluster from ONE optical and ONE HD, that's power
requirements down dramatically), meaning nine times the number of nodes for
the same power requirement. Nine times the number of cores doing nine times
the workload. Of course, this also gives a lot more flexibility and failure
redundancy, and given a parallelisable, scalable OS such as UNIX/Linux/BSD,
the sky (actually the bus capacity*) is the limit.
*in the UK the bus capacity on a ring main circuit is 2800W (or around 13
amps). This gives a theoretical maximum cluster size, using Nehemiah SBC
boards, of approximately 200 nodes (with the requisite 16 switch banks). A
supercomputer in your own home? If you got Â25,000+ just burning a hole in
your pocket, it's doable. Me? I'm hanging around flea markets for SBC
deals.
--
-*- Linux Desktops & Clustering Solutions -*- http://dotware.co.uk
-*- Registered Linux user #426308 -*- http://counter.li.org
-*- Once upon a midnight dreary, as I porn-searched, weak and weary,
o'er many a strange and spurious site of hot XXX galore.
But when I clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning,
and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my lost amore.
"'Tis not possible," I muttered, "give me back my free hardcore!"
Quoth the server: "404"
-*- Disclaimer:
By sending an email to ANY of my addresses you are agreeing that:
1. I am by definition, "the intended recipient"
2. All information in the email is mine to do with as I see fit and make
such financial profit, political mileage, or good joke as it lends itself
to. In particular, I may quote it on usenet.
3. I may take the contents as representing the views of your company.
4. This overrides any disclaimer or statement of confidentiality that may
be included on your message.
|
|
