The Chinese Solar Machine Layer by Layer Fire in the Library The Mystery Behind Anesthesia
Core collapse: This image--step 1492 of a simulation of a core-collapse supernova--was generated on Argonne National Laboratory's super computer, Intrepid, without the use of a graphics cluster.
Argonne National Laboratory
Computer scientists are visualizing the world's most gigantic datasets without graphics clusters.
Before specialized graphics-processing chips existed, pioneers in the field of visualization used multicore supercomputers to realize data in three dimensions. Today, however, the speed at which supercomputers can process data is rapidly outstripping the speed at which they can input and output that data. Graphics-processing clusters are becoming obsolete.
Researchers at Argonne National Laboratory and elsewhere are working on a solution. Rather than moving massive datasets to a specialized graphics-processing cluster for rendering, which is how things are done now, they are writing software that allows the thousands of processors in a supercomputer to do the visualization themselves.
Tom Peterka and Rob Ross, computer scientists at Argonne National Laboratory, and Hongfeng Yu and Kwan-Liu Ma of the University of California at Davis, have written software for Intrepid, an IBM Blue Gene/P supercomputer, that bypasses the graphics-processing cluster entirely. "It allows us to [visualize experiments] in a place that's closer to where data reside--on the same machine," says Peterka. His team's solution obviates the need to take the time-consuming step of moving the data from where it was generated to a secondary computer cluster.
Peterka's test data, obtained from John Blondin of North Carolina State University and Anthony Mezzacappa of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, represent 30 sequential steps in the simulated explosive death of a star, and are typical of the sort of information a supercomputer like Argonne's might tackle. Peterka's largest test with the data maxed out at a three-dimensional resolution of 89 billion voxels (three-dimensional pixels) and resulted in two-dimensional images 4,096 pixels on a side. Processing the data required 32,768 of Intrepid's 163,840 cores. Two-dimensional images were generated with a parallel volume-rendering algorithm, a classic approach to creating a two-dimensional snapshot of a three-dimensional dataset.
Normally, visualization and post-processing of data generated by Intrepid, which, at 557 teraflops, is the world's seventh-fastest supercomputer, requires a separate graphics-processing unit known as Eureka. (A teraflop is the equivalent of a trillion calculations per second.) Built from NVIDIA Quadro Plex S4 GPUs (graphics-processing units), Eureka runs at 111 teraflops. More-powerful supercomputers, in the petaflop range, present even bigger challenges.
"The bigger we go, the more the problem is bounded by [input/output speeds]," says Peterka. Merely writing to disk the amount of data produced by a simulation run on a petaflop supercomputer could take an unreasonable amount of time. The reason is simple: from one generation of supercomputer to the next, storage capacity and storage bandwidth aren't increasing as quickly as processing speed.
that picture looks like garbage. I dont believe its an accurate representation of the structure of a supernova.
It is a rendering of angular momentum. Of course it isn't going to look like a supernova you would see through a telescope. People should have graduated from highschool before they are allowed to post on these articles.
If you click on the link to Blondin, you'll see a picture that might be more intuitively obvious.
It's pretty foolish to make a statement like yours without any idea of what the graphic is showing. Is it a density map, a gravitational gradient vs temperature map, or something that is totally unrelated to anything you have ever imagined?
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
This document is part of the “How-To Guide for Most Common Measurements” centralized resource portal. This tutorial provides a detailed guide for measurement and device considerations to take temperature measurements using thermocouples. Get an introduction to thermocouples, which are inexpensive sensing devices widely used with PC-based data acquisition systems. Also review some specific thermocouple examples and learn how thermocouples work and ways to integrate them into a data acquisition measurement system.
View full PDF >Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
NomDuClavier
2 Comments
Why the either/or solution?
It occurs to me they may want to investigate making the GPU's part of the supercomputer's fabric to begin with, and have them process the data in lockstep; that is have them visualise step 1 as the rest of the cluster's working on step 2, and so on.
There might even be some utility in having the GPU's do some additional number crunching, or compress and stream the resulting image sets out of the cluster for offline visualisation.
Reply
stefanbanev
1 Comment
GPU vs CPU
>It occurs to me they may want to
>investigate making the GPU's par
Unfortunately, it had occurred to me as well and I have wasted 1 year for GPU to make GPU render volume better then CPU volumetric ray tracer I play with. CPU ray-tracer is getting dramatic boost with each new cpu from Intel; each new GPU generation reports a dramatic float-point speedup with actually very minor volumetric ray-casting/tracing performance improvement. In fact; I'm quite confident that CPU- volumetric ray-tracer I play with (running on dual W5580) provides way better interactive quality then the best GPU volumetric ray-tracer running on any (_ANY_) GPU hardware. To be creditable please make me pleasure take the challenge; any time any place (silicon valley is preferable) we may setup side-by-side comparison; If you are affiliated with any university or research center and if you are interested you may reply here I will give you the contact... BTW: I'm really interested to have a competitive GPU based VR ray-tracer for low-end CPU setup; so far just multiple "research" balloons and a lot of hype.
--sb
Reply
NomDuClavier
2 Comments
Re: GPU vs CPU
Oh, I'm not affiliated with any research group on the subject; I was plainly musing out loud a bit, so to speak.
Reply
wesleykendall
2 Comments
Re:
That is an interesting comment, as the next breed of supercomputers are expected to have many CPUs and GPUs. Number crunching is actually not the real issue that this work revolves around. If you read Tom Peterka's original article about this work, one of the primary (if not the primary) concern is reducing I/O time in the rendering of data this large. Often smaller GPU clusters do not have sufficient I/O systems on them that can efficiently handle data of this magnitude.
Reply