[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ccp4bb]: question about Linux-based crystallographic computing(fwd)
*** 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