Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- cluster:123 [2013/10/11 09:15]
hmeij
+++ cluster:123 [2013/10/19 09:53]
hmeij [Update]
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 \\
 **[[cluster:0|Back]]**
-To be send to Dave Baird.
 ==== Replace Dell Racks ====
@@ Line 19: / Line 17: @@
 Next step was to collect vendor quotes for a target budget of $82K, 3 years of Dell energy consumption, an arbitrary length of time. That's so we can downscale from there because the new racks of course still consume energy. Four quotes were obtained and they show a similar pattern. Here is the comparison given key features.
-Old hardware:
+Old hardware: 109,956 KwH/year for power\\
-nodes, 2.66 ghz, 4 mb L-cache (for cpu), 240 cores (job slots),
+nodes, 2.66 ghz, 4 mb L-cache (for cpu), 240 cores (job slots),\\
 gb local drive, 340 gb total ram, 12,555 watts (power no cooling), 670 gigaflops (actual measure)
-New hardware:
+New hardware v1: 47,304 KwH/year for power or 43% of old hardware\\
-nodes, 2.60 ghz, 20 mb L-cache (for cpu), 224 cores (job slots),
+nodes, 2.60 ghz, 20 mb L-cache (for cpu), 224 cores (job slots),\\
 TB local drive, 1,792 gb  total ram, 5,400 watts (power no cooling), 4,659 gigaflops (theoretical)
-In the representative example for new hardware the total energy consumption would be 10,800 watts.  If we reduced the node count to 7 the total energy consumption (power plus cooling) would be 5,400 watts (47,304 KwH/year) or 43% of the Dell's power consumption. And that's using the low water mark.
-The total cost of running the new hardware would be $5,913 per year. That would imply savings of $21,576 per year. The job slot count would be 112 but with hyperthreading technology that can be doubled. We'd still want the 1,792 memory footprint (8 gb/core) and the gigaflops (2,329) still far exceeds Dell's performance.
+New hardware v2 (half of v1): 23,652 KwH/year for cooling or 22% of Old hardware\\
+nodes, 2.60 ghz, 20 mb L-cache (for cpu), 112 cores (job slots),\\
+TB local drive, 1,792 gb  total ram, 2,700 watts (power no cooling), 2,329 gigaflops (theoretical)
+If we reduced the node count to 7 (the minimum configuration to meet the job slot count of the Dell hardware), the total energy consumption (power plus cooling) would be 5,400 watts.   The total cost of running the new hardware (v2) would be $5,913 per year. That would imply savings of $21,576 per year. And that's using the low water mark. The job slot count would be 112 but with hyperthreading technology that can be doubled. We'd still want the 1,792 memory footprint (8 gb/core) and the gigaflops (2,329) still far exceeds Dell's performance.
 In two years, the new hardware would have saved $43,152 on energy costs based on the low water mark (Dell's costs would equal $55K). We still need to adjust some minor issues:
@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 The Libert family rejoices.  The Dell family moves out. The end.
+==== Update ====
+The table below contains data for a cluster whose nodes are all on the Infiniband switch (and also ethernet switch for provision and data).  They also contain a 15K 300 GB SAS drives each for access to local fast disk (Gaussian users). It still deployes the 8-core CPUs, thus 16 pysical cores per node, 32 hyperthreaded cores per node and in both cases 256 GB of memory.
+^  Tnodes^  Tcores^  THcores^  Tmem gb^  Watts^  %of Dell^  TEnergy^  TEnergy $/Y^  TEsavings $/Y^  Quote $^   ROI Y^  Gflops^
+|  10|  160|  320|  2,560|  3,650|  29|  7,300|  7,994|  19,495|  76,866|  3.9|  3,328|
+|  9|  144|  288|  2,304|  3,285|  26|  6,570|  7,194|  20,295|  69,290|  3.4|  2,995|
+|  8|  128|  256|  2,048|  2,920|  23|  5,840|  6,395|  21,094|  61,714|  2.9|  2,662|
+|  7|  112|  224|  1,792|  2,555|  20|  5,110|  5,596|  21,893|  54,138|  2.4|  2,329|
 \\
 **[[cluster:0|Back]]**

DokuWiki

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools