Supercomputers

[Kiro]

Is it wrong that every time I read about these supercomputers I think "sure, but whats the FPS on a 1000+ part station in KSP?"

[Renegrade]

Nothing wrong with that!

A lot of 'em are built around parallel computing these days, which is only useful for a particular set of problems. While they're incredibly useful for that set of problems(and many of these problems are important ones that justify the huge expense), KSP is not a member of that set.

As KSP playing computers, they're expensive paperweights.

Very expensive paperweights...

[Gaarst]

Probably not a lot higher than your average PC, since KSP doesn't support multi-threads or multi-cores (I can't remember which) and supercomputers are basically hundreds of really powerful 8-cores (mostly) CPU.

Though this should change with Unity 5, as I heard it would enable multi-whatever support for KSP.

Don't quote me on that, I have close to no idea what I'm talking about...

[Pecan]

I have close to no idea what I'm talking about...

Is it ok if we quote that back at you in a couple of years, just when you've forgotten all about it and are feeling safe? Hehe.

*Sigh* I was seriously considering buying the Met Office's old Cray when they sold it off in the 90s. It would never have fit on my yacht though - and the power lead would have been a problem. Now 'phones have more power than that does.

[Hagen von Tronje]

Typically the "ultra high end" computing parts will do literally nothing for game type applications. Your dreams would be better served wishing for KSP x64 with multithreading enabled running on a 5960X on full immersion cooling.

Actually, just having multithreading with any efficiency would likely do wonders, most people with gaming PCs have eight effective cores.

[LordFerret]

Is it ok if we quote that back at you in a couple of years, just when you've forgotten all about it and are feeling safe? Hehe.

*Sigh* I was seriously considering buying the Met Office's old Cray when they sold it off in the 90s. It would never have fit on my yacht though - and the power lead would have been a problem. Now 'phones have more power than that does.

I came this close >< to buying an old PDP-11/70 a good while back ... not enough room in the garage, plus it gorged something like 6000-8000 watts (just the CPU cabinet). lol

[richfiles]

As a collector of vintage computers and calculators...

Why the hay do I live surrounded by endless rows of cornfields, in Nowhere, USA, where the most "vintage" computer is that Windows ME PC from 2001, with 47 worms and viruses that gets passed off as "still usable". We don't have ANY goodies like retired Crays and PDP machines...

Edited August 25, 2015 by richfiles

[Kiro]

I love that everyone is giving very valid, thought out responses. I meant this to be more as a gag, yet I'm enjoying the answers.

I'm well aware of the current multi-threading issue and I'm also hoping that the upgrade to Unity 5 will address this in particular. However, based on what I've read on other threads, it might not be a complete solution for those of us looking to build massive ships and space stations.

[GarrisonChisholm]

I came this close >< to buying an old PDP-11/70 a good while back ... not enough room in the garage, plus it gorged something like 6000-8000 watts (just the CPU cabinet). lol

I briefly used to re-sell AS400's in the 90's, that would be Particularly useless for this application.

[Jouni]

KSP would be slower on a supercomputer than on a decent gaming PC. The only thing that really differentiates a supercomputer from a pile of servers is the network between the servers. Supercomputers use Xeons and other standard server CPUs, and like in other servers, it's more efficient to add more cores than to go beyond 3 GHz.

[Technical Ben]

They can help in certain instances. KSP could have some parallel processing. For example, each craft in the area could be a separate thread that just waits for the next to update before taking a "step". Or the craft part tree could be split into smaller pieces, and again, each one a separate calculation. Currently though it is all mainly done in one big go.

However, some of the really really big supercomputers may not have the bandwidth to get the FPS updates in time. They are great for replaying the physics, back in realtime or in slow motion, but not in outputting to a screen in realtime. Eg "Thank you for booting up KSP, sim running for half and hour, will report back then, goodbye".

[Kerb Johnson]

I briefly used to re-sell AS400's in the 90's, that would be Particularly useless for this application.

I have a 9406/170 under my desk

[MiniMatt]

Chuckle, loving this thread, if only because I'm old and recognise the tech. Used to work alongside a lot of AS/400s (and a fair number of iSeries stuff after that).

Closest I get to hands on though is a fairly modest 5 or 6u 200mhz quad pentium-pro Compaq Proliant that I rescued from an installation and repurposed as a fairly popular Freelancer server which ran until ~2010.

[Mat2ch]

They can help in certain instances. KSP could have some parallel processing. For example, each craft in the area could be a separate thread that just waits for the next to update before taking a "step". Or the craft part tree could be split into smaller pieces, and again, each one a separate calculation. Currently though it is all mainly done in one big go.

Heat and heat flow can have its own thread as well, because it's not a force working on the craft, but something independent.

[magnemoe]

Probably not a lot higher than your average PC, since KSP doesn't support multi-threads or multi-cores (I can't remember which) and supercomputers are basically hundreds of really powerful 8-cores (mostly) CPU.

Though this should change with Unity 5, as I heard it would enable multi-whatever support for KSP.

Don't quote me on that, I have close to no idea what I'm talking about...

Rather supercomputers are networks of servers, the servers tend to have say 4-8 cpu each with say 12 cores, many now also use GPU chips for calculations.

Tasks are split on servers, this works on tasks supercomputers are used for, main difference from server farms like the ones google or facebook run on is much higher bandwidth between servers.

Now if KSP 1.1 is truly multi threaded it would work well on an server with 80 cores, it would not use an network.

Most popular use for networked servers is rendering especially rendering movies, does not have to be Avatar, we use it at my office making for animations and then with office pcs.

[Camaron]

As a collector of vintage computers and calculators...

Why the hay do I live surrounded by endless rows of cornfields, in Nowhere, USA, where the most "vintage" computer is that Windows ME PC from 2001, with 47 worms and viruses that gets passed off as "still usable". We don't have ANY goodies like retired Crays and PDP machines...

Moving to the location of your choice is always a thing you could do.

As for the upcoming multithreading, I have a bunch of PC's in my house ranging from a Dual core with H/T to a ten-core with H/T, so I will definitely be benchmarking KSP to some extent.

[NecroBones]

*Sigh* I was seriously considering buying the Met Office's old Cray when they sold it off in the 90s. It would never have fit on my yacht though - and the power lead would have been a problem. Now 'phones have more power than that does.

[magnemoe]

http://www.supermicro.com/products/system/5U/5086/SYS-5086B-TRF.cfm

This is as close to an supercomputer you can run KSP on as you can get. 80 cores. 2 TB memory, should be possible to use with an graphic card.

Only downside is that its and pretty old design and don't support the newest cpu.

http://www.supermicro.com/products/system/4U/7048/SYS-7048A-T.cfm

This is more realistic

[Archgeek]

I'm old and recognise the tech. Used to work alongside a lot of AS/400s (and a fair number of iSeries stuff after that).

Gah, I currently work with an AS/400. My place o' work runs a giant DB2 database and a lot of cobol and CL stuff (as well as our web server for some reason) on one of the things. So much emulated greenscreen.

[Pecan]

Gah, I currently work with an AS/400. My place o' work runs a giant DB2 database and a lot of cobol and CL stuff (as well as our web server for some reason) on one of the things. So much emulated greenscreen.

The only people who could mention AS/400s (or any other commercial IBM machine) in a supercomputer thread are the salesmen - they are specially trained to keep a straight face. Realistically it's nothing more than a mini-computer and in a lot of ways less than a micro-computer.

[Yeah, I worked for IBM for a short time, although it was one of the three I said I never would. Still holding out against the other two.]

[Kerb Johnson]

I've loved all the 400's I've worked with. Most reliable boxes I've ever gotten to admin.

[LordFerret]

Wha?? No love for RS/6000 AIX machines or SPARC machines here??? lol

[Curveball Anders]

Wha?? No love for RS/6000 AIX machines or SPARC machines here??? lol

I've got a Sun Enterprise 450 (a proper computer, since it's got wheels ...).

4x400 MHz UltraSparcII's 4 GB RAM and almost 250 GB HDD ...

Once upon a time it was an awesome database server (and it's still decent), but for any form of general computing it's slower than a 10+ yo laptop

It also consumes more power than all my other computers together (and I've got quite a few) and makes more noise than a bunch of old vacuum cleaners at full blow ...

[NecroBones]

Yeah, the power draw, cooling, and noise are the reasons I stopped collecting and rescuing old hardware. Now, my main reason for having everything rack-mounted is to keep it organized, and to be able to close the door so I hear the fans a lot less.

[LordFerret]

That reminds me, data center in NYC (stock & commodity services house, early 1980's)... 10 HP-1000Cs {+2 R&D} (daisy chained) powering back up after full shutdown, in a room full of 'dishwashers' (12-platter stack drives, I think 24 of them)... they had to spin up to speed and temp before head load & settle. Was like listening to several small jets wind up lol.