3 ms·

Except the EU paid for the hardware https://eurohpc-ju.europa.eu/supercomputers/our-supercomputers_en https://eurohpc-ju.europa.eu/supercomputers/our-supercompu

• Pandabob 2y ago
  Came here to point this out. Silo never had to invest huge amounts on GPUs. A shrewd move by the founders.
  • rubatuga 2y ago
    There is debate about public investment into private ventures, but in this case it may provide long term benefits to Finland
• petesergeant 2y ago
  Even better!
• baobabKoodaa 2y ago
  Where in that source does it claim that Silo didn't have to pay to use the hardware?
  • jacobgorm 2y ago
    I don’t think it is possible to pay for access to LUMI. I know my company has been in talks about getting free access as it sits under utilized most of the time. These supercomputers are mostly vanity projects for EU politicians, there is no commercial use case.
    • Certhas 2y ago
      I don't know about Lumi specifically, but top tier scientific supercomputers should typically have 80+% utilisation rate: https://doku.lrz.de/usage-statistics-for-supermuc-ng-11483092.html https://doku.lrz.de/usage-statistics-for-supermuc-ng-1148309... Smaller machines will tend lower from what i have seen. If you give a large enough pool of scientists access to significant compute resources, they will generally figure out how to saturate them. Also, scientific teams often can't pay top software engineers. Lots of hardware is a way to compensate for inefficient code. If Lumi is underutilized to such an extent someone is funking up. There is of course no commercial use case for these computers. That's not the point of these machines.