clusters v SMP

William Park opengeometry at
Mon Jan 28 16:26:56 EST 2002

On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 08:11:51PM +0000, Ricky Rankin wrote:
> At Queen's we hope to have abot £300K to spend on a new facility. We
> currently have a Sun 3500 with 6 processors and 6GB of memory and a 48
> Node IBM SP.
> At one stage we had thought that the budget would be around £150K and
> had been looking for a Linux Cluster, however with more money
> potentially available and having had presentations from IBM and SGI
> with Sun and Compaq to follow we are now completely confused.

Hehe... know the feeling.

> The 4GB memory restriction of an Intel node would be too restrictive
> for some of our users. The majority I suspect are still running single
> processor jobs while we have several users who can exploit parallel
> architectures.
> Some advice on the pros and cons of the different architectures would
> be appreciated - we are looking for a central production system and
> not one that is owned by a department.
> Thanks Ricky

SMP is always better than clusters, but you can add more CPUs to your
clusters.  Why not get a quad (or few duals) with globs of RAM?  That
would satisfy both the single-cpu users and multi-cpu users.  Last time
I checked, anything more than 4-way was too expensive.  But, then, I
didn't have someone else to pay for it. :-)

William Park, Open Geometry Consulting, <opengeometry at>
8 CPU cluster, NAS, (Slackware) Linux, Python, LaTeX, Vim, Mutt, Tin
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit

More information about the Beowulf mailing list