From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <13426df10807180708s331f06e5qd6739b37c1fee452@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:08:05 -0700
From: "ron minnich" <rminnich@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net>
In-Reply-To: <968b80bf6faac81e39d56ce443f1bd41@quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <13426df10807171245s2161103dv14949e7a03e630f6@mail.gmail.com>
	<968b80bf6faac81e39d56ce443f1bd41@quanstro.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] good fun
Topicbox-Message-UUID: eb681d62-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:49 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> very, very cool.  thanks for the link, ron.
>
> i wonder if richard feynman (who is mentioned) might
> have criticized the ops/s vs. time graph on p. 5 for being
> overly fit to one end point -- the accounting machines
> in the lower left?
>
> has anyone continued this graph to more recent times?
>

Would not be hard. Cray 1 is 1e8 in 1978 and we're now at 1e15.

It's not a uniform graph. Interesting that we hit 1e12 in 2000 or so
and are now at 1e15 ...I built a 10T in 2002, so there is a slight
slowing, but not much.

But those Cray 1 vs. cluster FLOP numbers are different. A Cray 1
vector flop rate is not easily compared to a cluster flop rate.

For $1m you can get a 40T system; the japanese earth simulator, 30T,
probably cost about $500M to build including all costs.

It's going to really ramp up with stuff like the Intel systems coming up.

thanks

ron