3 ms·

I'm somewhat confused -- I thought we were arguing similar points? I don't want to drag this out, but where do you see the language constraint? You need an MPI

I'm somewhat confused -- I thought we were arguing similar points? I don't want to drag this out, but where do you see the language constraint? You need an MPI binding, sure, but what else?

dekhn 11y ago
No, the people who run the clusters won't let you run any language just because it has an MPI binding. They invest a lot in ensuring peak performance, and right now, only C++ and FORTRAN can achieve that. Very few, if any, major supercomputer centers support Java codes.
- apawloski 11y ago
  Oh, you're talking about a policy limitation, not a technological one. (And if you're talking about the DOE or NSF/Teragrid/XSEDE clusters, then you're probably right. Haven't touched those in years -- and even when I did, I wasn't doing anything crazy.)
  - dekhn 11y ago
    To be frank, if I was running a computer that was designed for peak performance, I probably wouldn't use Java. There are some very significant performance issues with garbage collection that prevent you from making peak use of them machine. Supercomputers aren't built so that people can squander the resource (desktop PCs, closest clusters, and phones fulfill that role).
  - wnissen 11y ago
    It is a technical limitation. Oftentimes the platform is so specialized that only a tiny handful of compilers are ported to it. Say, just gcc, g++, and gfortran, and xlc, xlC, and xlf. And just one version at that. Java would require porting the JVM to the cut-down, weird Linux on the compute nodes. Some $$$ machines don't even support dynamic linking! The number of these machines is so small that extensive compiler and tool support just isn't happening unless you want to add millions to the cost.
    - dekhn 11y ago
      There is no problem running a JVM on cut-down linux nodes. A JVM is just a process. Anyway, the issue with JVMs is that they don't have predictable performance, not that the compilers can't be ported.
      - wnissen 11y ago
        The JVM probably calls fork() and system(), no? Not allowed. Dynamic thread creation? Not allowed. And 50% of your flops go away unless your program uses the BG/Q-specific "double hummer" floating point instructions. These are primitive machines, in terms of development environment and typically require significant rewriting to get even "standard" system software working.

I'm somewhat confused -- I thought we were arguing similar points? I don't want to drag this out, but where do you see the language constraint? You need an MPI binding, sure, but what else?

dekhn 11y ago

No, the people who run the clusters won't let you run any language just because it has an MPI binding. They invest a lot in ensuring peak performance, and right now, only C++ and FORTRAN can achieve that. Very few, if any, major supercomputer centers support Java codes.

apawloski 11y ago
Oh, you're talking about a policy limitation, not a technological one. (And if you're talking about the DOE or NSF/Teragrid/XSEDE clusters, then you're probably right. Haven't touched those in years -- and even when I did, I wasn't doing anything crazy.)
- dekhn 11y ago
  To be frank, if I was running a computer that was designed for peak performance, I probably wouldn't use Java. There are some very significant performance issues with garbage collection that prevent you from making peak use of them machine. Supercomputers aren't built so that people can squander the resource (desktop PCs, closest clusters, and phones fulfill that role).
- wnissen 11y ago
  It is a technical limitation. Oftentimes the platform is so specialized that only a tiny handful of compilers are ported to it. Say, just gcc, g++, and gfortran, and xlc, xlC, and xlf. And just one version at that. Java would require porting the JVM to the cut-down, weird Linux on the compute nodes. Some $$$ machines don't even support dynamic linking! The number of these machines is so small that extensive compiler and tool support just isn't happening unless you want to add millions to the cost.
  - dekhn 11y ago
    There is no problem running a JVM on cut-down linux nodes. A JVM is just a process. Anyway, the issue with JVMs is that they don't have predictable performance, not that the compilers can't be ported.
    - wnissen 11y ago
      The JVM probably calls fork() and system(), no? Not allowed. Dynamic thread creation? Not allowed. And 50% of your flops go away unless your program uses the BG/Q-specific "double hummer" floating point instructions. These are primitive machines, in terms of development environment and typically require significant rewriting to get even "standard" system software working.