3 ms·

I don't work with ML, so maybe this is stupid, but wouldn't a "regular consumer PC" have orders of magnitude less GPU power than a "supercomputer"? I'm assuming

I don't work with ML, so maybe this is stupid, but wouldn't a "regular consumer PC" have orders of magnitude less GPU power than a "supercomputer"? I'm assuming the latter has some form of GPU farm, whereas I don't know if you can fit more that 3-4 fat GPUs in the former. So if you'd be able to split the workload such that it would be able to run on consumer PCs in a reasonable time, wouldn't that also split the storage requirements the same way? Or, if instead you're OK with waiting for ages for the regular GPU to do its thing, is transfer speed that much of an issue?

tuvan 5y ago
Yes there are models that are trained on hundreds of GPUs but from my limited experience in scientific computing, most of the time researchers run their programs on a single node because going multi-gpu or multi-cpu requires somewhat large code changes and a single node is "good enough" for their use case or they come from a heavy science background and don't even know how to utilize multi node architecture. Their main benefit from using a cluster is 100% uptime, large storage, and large memory. I've been to multiple research institutes where there is an institute-wide HPC and researchers share it, that way no one needs any kind of high end computer and can just connect to the cluster. This service can help in that area if researchers can somehow schedule a job from their low-end laptop and get the results when the job is done.