The attached link to the Scientific American article on clustering may
shed some light-
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000E238B-33EC-1C6F-84A9809EC588EF21&pageNumber=2&catID=2
Linux clusters are built cheap to go fast. The article cites a cluster
built in 1994 for approximately $40,000 that was the functional
equivalent of a $400,000 supercomputer. The article also indicates that
identical pcs are not required to assemble a cluster. The Stone Souper
Computer discussed in the article ran a hodgepodge of 486s, Pentiums
and Alphas on the same cluster.
Lee Einer
Liberty Young wrote:
>I was just pondering the following question based on what David said
>earlier today.
>
>>Lots of people would rather spring for a cluster then huge single
>>machine now a days.
>>
>
>
>Putting aside that it's very geek-cool to run or put together a cluster
>of cheap x86 pcs, what are the reasons to have a cluster vs a single
>machine?
>
>One reason TO have a cluster is that you can run your own clustering OS
>and kernel; then again, the kernel and OS may fall shy of the ones built
>into and for the single machine.
>
>I was also thinking that with clusters, it is very hard to amass a clone
>army of the same pc for each node. You would HAVE to have a contract
>with a vendor that states very explicitly that they would supply you an
>exact replica for each node. Otherwise, there'd be difficulty and costs
>involved in maintance. For example, you couldn't just use a single
>restore CD or a ghost image of the machine to install a new one or fix a
>corrupted one.
>
>Disclaimer: These are just theoritcal thoughts. I'm not a large scale
>administrator of any kind.
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
>http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-dis
>
(text/plain)