Re: [ccp4bb]: question about Linux-based crystallographic computing(fwd)

["David J. Schuller" <djs63@cornell.edu>]

***  For details on how to be removed from this list visit the  ***
***          CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk         ***

On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Fred. Vellieux wrote:

> Well, I am certainly not too shy to forward this e-mail to the bb.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Bonjour Dr. Vellieux,
> 
> I hope you don't mind an unsolicited e-mail from someone; I have seen
> EDITED OUT EDITED OUT EDITED OUT EDITED OUT EDITED OUT EDITED OUT
> EDITED OUT EDITED O.  I am wanting to buy a Linux-based number cruncher
> to augment/ replace our aging Origin 200 4-processor server.  I saw that
> you had gotten an Athlon processor several years ago- do you still like
> their performance?  I want to run denzo, CCP4, CNS, SHELX, SOLVE etc. or
> a multiuser facility for five of more crystallography labs.
> 
> Do you recommend Athlon vs. Pentium 4 vs. Alpha (if we could afford
> Alpha does it really help?)  How many processors can you put on one
> system and have it work well?
> 
> Thanks for your advice- I am too shy to post to the BB

we have reached the point where i can no longer recommend Alpha. the 
latest 1 GHz Alpha still performs quite well on floating point 
(www.spec.org), but Compaq does not put their fastest Alpha chips in 
single processor workstations.  current top of the line P4s and Athlons 
will match or exceed the performance of 1 CPU Alpha workstations.  when 
you consider price/performance, then its a no-brainer.

our lab tends to prefer Athlons over P4s. Athlon processors are cheaper, 
and besides Intel is the Microsoft of hardware.  I know you can get dual 
processor motherboards for Athlon.

If you want more processors than that in a Linux system, it might be 
better to go with a Beowulf cluster. it makes more sense on the issues of 
bang-for-the-buck and upgradability. is there some reason other than 
cognitive inertia that you would prefer a big multi-processor over 
numerous PC/workstations?  Anything you buy is going to be obsolete in a 
couple of years, so why buy a US$50K multi-processor server instead of 
numerous US$2-3K PCs?  Since Linux has most of the features available on 
Unix, you can still share disks, account info, etc. via NFS, NIS, AFS or 
whatever.

there are a few shortcomings to Linux. Filesystems are currently limited 
to 2 TB, which i have found obstructive.  i occasionally get a 
'not-yet-ready-for-prime-time' vibe when i have to, say, install numerous 
prerequisite RPMs to get a package running (i didn't say PyMOL), and then 
some other package stops running.  Also, if you follow the o-info mailing 
list you will know that "which graphics card will support O in stereo 
mode on Linux" gets asked about every other week.  (i note that all the 
applications you specified are computational, not graphical.)

there are also some benefits to Linux over Alpha Tru64 and other 
workstation options.  you will have more modern choices of things like 
browsers, more choice of hardware options like FireWire and other 
interfaces.

Also, I wouldn't count out Apple Macintosh, now that its really Unix.
the rumors i saw on the specs of their G5 were pretty impressive, i hope 
they get around to releasing it someday.

let the flames begin,

=======================================================================
"You can trust me, because I'm in the news media"  -- Dave Barry
=======================================================================
                        David J. Schuller
                        modern man in a post-modern world
                        MacCHESS, Cornell University
                        djs63@cornell.edu