Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Supercomputer Visuals Without Graphics Chips

Computer scientists are visualizing the world's most gigantic datasets without graphics clusters.

By Christopher Mims

Monday, August 10, 2009

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

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.

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.
Credit: Argonne National Laboratory

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.

Story continues below


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.

Comments

  • [no subject]
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    NomDuClavier
    08/10/2009
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • 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
      Rate this comment: 12345

      stefanbanev
      08/10/2009
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • 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.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        NomDuClavier
        08/11/2009
        Posts:2
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
  • supercomputer picture
    that picture looks like garbage. I dont believe its an accurate representation of the structure of a supernova.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    protn7
    08/10/2009
    Posts:70
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • ...like garbage
    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?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    coloradoengi...
    08/10/2009
    Posts:10
    Avg Rating:
    4/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Malleable Maps, Artistic Robots and Bubble Interfaces
Technology Review January/February 2010

Current Issue

Security in the Ether
Information technology's next grand challenge will be to secure the cloud--and prove we can trust it.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2010 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.