• Z3k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 hours ago

    As someone who worked on designing racks in the super computer space about 10 q5vyrs ago I had no clue windows and mac even tried to entered the space

    • gerdesj@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      47 minutes ago

      about 10 q5vyrs ago

      Have you been distracted and typed a password/PSK in the wrong field 8)

    • superkretOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 hours ago

      There was a time when a bunch of organisations made their own supercomputers by just clustering a lot of regular computers:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_X_(supercomputer)

      For Windows I couldn’t find anything.
      If you google “Windows supercomputer”, you just get lots of results about Microsoft supercomputers, which of course all run on Linux.

        • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 minutes ago

          but it did not stick.

          Yeah. It was bad. The job of a Supercomputer is to be really fast and really parallel. Windows for Supercomputing was… not.

          I honestly thought it might make it, considering the engineering talent that Microsoft had.

          But I think time proves that Unix and Linux just had an insurmountable head start. Windows, to the best of my knowledge, never came close to closing the gap.

      • Z3k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Yeh it was system x I worked on out default was redhat. I forget the other options but win and mac sure as shut wasn’t on the list

    • superkretOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I think you can actually see it in the graph.
      The Condor Cluster with its 500 Teraflops would have been in the Top 500 supercomputers from 2009 till ~2014.
      The PS3 operating system is a BSD, and you can see a thin yellow line in that exact time frame.

    • A7thStone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Yes, in the linux stat. The otheros option on the early PS3 allowed you to boot linux, which is what most, of not all, of the clusters used.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 hours ago

    We’re gonna take the test, and we’re gonna keep taking it until we get one hundred percent in the bitch!

  • Rogue@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Any idea how it’d look if broken down into distros? I’m assuming enterprise support would be favoured so Red Hat or Ubuntu would dominate?

    • superkretOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      The previously fastest ran on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the current fastest runs on SUSE Enterprise Linux.
      The current third fastest (owned by Microsoft) runs Ubuntu. That’s as far as I care to research.

  • snek_boi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    This looks impressive for Linux, and I’m glad FLOSS has such an impact! However, I wonder if the numbers are still this good if you consider more supercomputers. Maybe not. Or maybe yes! We’d have to see the evidence.

    • superkretOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 hours ago

      There’s no reason to believe smaller supercomputers would have significantly different OS’s.
      At some point you enter the realm of mainframes and servers.
      Mainframes almost all run Linux now, the last Unix’s are close to EOL.
      Servers have about a 75% Linux market share, with the rest mostly running Windows and some BSD.