3 ms·
We're entering the era of "kilo cores" in the same way computing entered the era of kilobytes in the 1940s. If you consider a tightly-coupled rack of servers wi
by jiggawatts 2y ago
We're entering the era of "kilo cores" in the same way computing entered the era of kilobytes in the 1940s. If you consider a tightly-coupled rack of servers with GPUs to be one machine, then we're well into the hundreds of kilocores.
I found it entertaining having a debate with someone here on HN who just couldn't grok the concept that it's possible to serve something the size of Wikipedia from a single server. That's been easy for a while now, it just isn't done for practical reasons such as availability or cost-efficiency.
- JonChesterfield 2y agoIs that actually true, or only that you can serve it from one server behind a lot of servers named CDN?
- jiggawatts 2y agoIt’s definitely true. It won’t be optimal or fast for end users, but it’s entirely doable. One of the main benefits of a CDN is that it brings the data closer to the users, reducing network latency. Obviously a single server can’t be close to every user globally! In practice one would always use a CDN for a site like WikiPedia but the point is that it isn’t necessary to handle the traffic. A single two-socket EPYC server can put out something like 400 Gbps of traffic, which is far more than all but the biggest sites.
- fulafel 2y agoGPU terminology "cores" are more like SIMD lanes, they're not comparable.