Origin 300 over Origin 2000 Advice - SGI

This is a discussion on Origin 300 over Origin 2000 Advice - SGI ; Hi, we are running single threaded calculations that eat up about 200Mb of system memory and all clock cycles for arround 20 hours for big jobs. Were running calculations on images from out Electron Microscopes. We don't seem to be ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Origin 300 over Origin 2000 Advice

  1. Origin 300 over Origin 2000 Advice

    Hi,
    we are running single threaded calculations that eat up about 200Mb of
    system memory and all clock cycles for arround 20 hours for big jobs. Were
    running calculations on images from out Electron Microscopes.

    We don't seem to be consuming a lot of system bandwidth and our code runs
    as fast on a 360Mhz Octane as it does on a 360Mhz Origin2000. I want to
    know if I would be better off going for an Origin2000 or an Origin300.
    Were only going to buy a 4 cpu system as we have 4 users to the the system
    at once (in the worst case thats what it has to cope with). We've been
    offered a quad 600Mhz Origin300 for under 12000 with Origin vault or a
    quad 550Mhz Origin2000 for about the same. Not sure whats best to go for.
    Were not consuming all the on chip memory as our code processes the image
    line by line so there is only a few Kb's of code in cpu memory at any one
    time. I'm going to link the system to my NFS server by 1Gb network for
    more bandwidth so thats not limiting our simulations as well as installing
    maybe 200Gb's of local scratch space. We need no graphics as our software
    only supports 256 colours and is a number crunching operation not an
    intence visual simulation.

    What do you think? Origin300 or 2000?



    *********************
    Khalid Schofield
    System Administrator / EM Technician
    Dept. Of Materials
    University Of Oxford
    Parks Road
    Oxford
    OX1 3PH

    Email: khalid.schofield@materials.ox.ac.uk
    Tel: 01865 273785
    Fax: 01865 283333
    Web: http://www-em.materials.ox.ac.uk/peo...eld/index.html


  2. Re: Origin 300 over Origin 2000 Advice

    Khalid Schofield writes:

    > Hi,
    > we are running single threaded calculations that eat up about 200Mb of
    > system memory and all clock cycles for arround 20 hours for big jobs. Were
    > running calculations on images from out Electron Microscopes.
    >
    > We don't seem to be consuming a lot of system bandwidth and our code runs
    > as fast on a 360Mhz Octane as it does on a 360Mhz Origin2000. I want to
    > know if I would be better off going for an Origin2000 or an Origin300.
    > Were only going to buy a 4 cpu system as we have 4 users to the the system
    > at once (in the worst case thats what it has to cope with). We've been
    > offered a quad 600Mhz Origin300 for under 12000 with Origin vault or a
    > quad 550Mhz Origin2000 for about the same. Not sure whats best to go for.
    > Were not consuming all the on chip memory as our code processes the image
    > line by line so there is only a few Kb's of code in cpu memory at any one
    > time. I'm going to link the system to my NFS server by 1Gb network for
    > more bandwidth so thats not limiting our simulations as well as installing
    > maybe 200Gb's of local scratch space. We need no graphics as our software
    > only supports 256 colours and is a number crunching operation not an
    > intence visual simulation.
    >
    > What do you think? Origin300 or 2000?


    The Achilles heel of the O300 is that it only has two PCI-slots. If
    you can live with that I'd definitely go for the O300. It's a lot
    more compact and easier to handle. I'd imagine the support contracts
    are quite a bit cheaper for the O300 too (if that's a consideration).

    *p



  3. Re: Origin 300 over Origin 2000 Advice

    In article ,
    Khalid Schofield wrote:
    ......
    >What do you think? Origin300 or 2000?


    It sounds like your applications would be well served by either
    platform at about the same speed. Both machines are reliable,
    but if you carry a maintenance contract, the 300 would be must
    less expensive to support. Also, the 300 will take less power
    and be less of heat load.

    --
    Daniel Packman
    NCAR/ACD
    pack@ucar.edu

  4. Re: Origin 300 over Origin 2000 Advice

    On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 17:38:23 +0000 (UTC), pack@eos.ucar.edu (Daniel
    Packman) wrote:

    >In article ,
    >Khalid Schofield wrote:
    >.....
    >>What do you think? Origin300 or 2000?

    >
    >It sounds like your applications would be well served by either
    >platform at about the same speed. Both machines are reliable,
    >but if you carry a maintenance contract, the 300 would be must
    >less expensive to support. Also, the 300 will take less power
    >and be less of heat load.



    You can get more bang for your buck with a 2000
    For example, 8x350mhz r12K ,8 gig ram $7K
    8 gig of ram in a 300 will set you back more than 12K alone
    I have several desksides available
    847-480-1133


  5. Re: Origin 300 over Origin 2000 Advice

    Khalid Schofield wrote:
    > We don't seem to be consuming a lot of system bandwidth and our code runs
    > as fast on a 360Mhz Octane as it does on a 360Mhz Origin2000.


    That would figure -- the front side bus is well nigh indentical in speed.

    Don't assume: measure. perfex -y -a is your friend.

    I want to
    > know if I would be better off going for an Origin2000 or an Origin300.
    > Were only going to buy a 4 cpu system as we have 4 users to the the system
    > at once (in the worst case thats what it has to cope with). We've been
    > offered a quad 600Mhz Origin300 for under 12000 with Origin vault or a
    > quad 550Mhz Origin2000 for about the same.


    If you want maintenance from SGI, the Origin 300 is going to be a lot cheaper.
    [And in case someone thinks it's a Devious Plan, it isn't: components are cheaper
    and the reliability figures are better, too].

    What I'm failing to see is why you'd take the O2000 -- at best, it's going to
    be just as fast as the O300 but not faster, and it's going to be larger and
    support less recent I/O cards, at the same price...

    --
    Alexis Cousein Senior Systems Engineer
    alexis@sgi.com SGI/Silicon Graphics Brussels

    Nobody Expects the Belgian Inquisition!


  6. Re: Origin 300 over Origin 2000 Advice

    The Origin2000 has better system IO as it says on sgi.com it's 160Gb/s on
    teh bus and Origin 300 is 44.7Gb/s

    *********************
    Khalid Schofield
    System Administrator / EM Technician
    Dept. Of Materials
    University Of Oxford
    Parks Road
    Oxford
    OX1 3PH

    Email: khalid.schofield@materials.ox.ac.uk
    Tel: 01865 273785
    Fax: 01865 283333
    Web: http://www-em.materials.ox.ac.uk/peo...eld/index.html


    On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Alexis Cousein wrote:

    > Khalid Schofield wrote:
    > > We don't seem to be consuming a lot of system bandwidth and our code runs
    > > as fast on a 360Mhz Octane as it does on a 360Mhz Origin2000.

    >
    > That would figure -- the front side bus is well nigh indentical in speed.
    >
    > Don't assume: measure. perfex -y -a is your friend.
    >
    > I want to
    > > know if I would be better off going for an Origin2000 or an Origin300.
    > > Were only going to buy a 4 cpu system as we have 4 users to the the system
    > > at once (in the worst case thats what it has to cope with). We've been
    > > offered a quad 600Mhz Origin300 for under 12000 with Origin vault ora
    > > quad 550Mhz Origin2000 for about the same.

    >
    > If you want maintenance from SGI, the Origin 300 is going to be a lot cheaper.
    > [And in case someone thinks it's a Devious Plan, it isn't: components are cheaper
    > and the reliability figures are better, too].
    >
    > What I'm failing to see is why you'd take the O2000 -- at best, it's going to
    > be just as fast as the O300 but not faster, and it's going to be larger and
    > support less recent I/O cards, at the same price...
    >
    > --
    > Alexis Cousein Senior Systems Engineer
    > alexis@sgi.com SGI/Silicon Graphics Brussels
    >
    > Nobody Expects the Belgian Inquisition!
    >
    >


  7. Re: Origin 300 over Origin 2000 Advice

    Khalid Schofield wrote:

    > The Origin2000 has better system IO as it says on sgi.com it's 160Gb/s on
    > teh bus and Origin 300 is 44.7Gb/s
    >

    A 32 CPU Origin 300 is indeed endowed with less bandwidth than a 256 CPU Origin 2000,
    so if you plan to upgrade your machine up to the maximum supported CPU count,
    your reasoning is sound.

    However, a 4-cpu Origin 300 has two SysAD buses clocked at double the speed of the
    two SysAD buses on a 4-cpu Origin 200. Unless it's a 2x2 cpu model for the O300,
    in which case it has *four* of those SysAD buses instead of two -- but that's
    a more expensive setup and has two 2p boxes.

    The memory subsystem behind this is also twice as fast *per processor* on the
    O300 (or four times as fast for the 2x2 CPU model).

    [Small nitpick: Gb/s is usually used for Gigabits per second, GB/s for
    Gigabytes/s]
    --
    Alexis Cousein Senior Systems Engineer
    alexis@sgi.com SGI/Silicon Graphics Brussels

    Nobody Expects the Belgian Inquisition!


  8. Re: Origin 300 over Origin 2000 Advice

    Khalid Schofield wrote in message news:...
    > What do you think? Origin300 or 2000?


    Origin 300 / Origin 350. Small and fast... modern I/O. And when your
    needs change in the future, you should be able to plug in a CG Brick
    for FireGL graphics for a powerful (and loud) workstation.

    RAM is expensive for SN1/MIPS (O3K, O300/O350/Onyx4, Fuel, Tezro) so
    plan ahead!

+ Reply to Thread