Windows Compute Cluster Server 2003

[Dr Mordrid]

Yup....Windoze for supercomputers;

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=02100000JPWF

I can just imagine

Dr. Mordrid

[Sasq]

brings a new meaning to the phrase 'Cluster f**k'

[MultimediaMan]

Um, don't be surprised if it outperforms the *nix based clusters...particularly in latency.

Let's not forget that Windows has arguably the best network adapter driver support of any OS: most server-grade network cards have hardware assistance features which tend only to work in Windows.

Maintenance of a Windows-based Cluster will be a breeze if the current *.msc templates are any indication.

As far as the software that runs on it: you can run anything from Compiled C# code all the way down to the most elementary Batch Script. Developing SC apps for Windows is going to lower the learning curve rapidly.

[Sasq]

mmm dude, seriously you gotta stop taking the kickbacks from MS

[Jammrock]

MS is decades behind *nix clustering, I doubt version 1.0 will be comparible to a beowulf cluster on the same hardware.

[MultimediaMan]

I agree that Windows Clustering as it is now, is really basic: it is designed for redundancy and high availablity, at the expense of performance.

But the White papers I've seen and a couple of hands-on seminars have show that Microsoft understands what needs to be done to get performance out of a cluster. Anybody wondering why they are Giving Away Virtual Server all of a sudden?

Try Clustering Windows Server 2003 R2: you might be in for a bit of a surprise, in terms of performance.

[Wombat]

But the White papers I've seen and a couple of hands-on seminars have show that Microsoft understands what needs to be done to get performance out of a cluster.

MS "understands" what proper security would be like as well, but they sure don't implement it.

[Dr Mordrid]

AMEN!!

Dr. Mordrid

[MultimediaMan]

And what, pray, is so insecure about it? Yes, there are monthly security updates for Windows, but take a gander over at Linux Compatible or any of the other *nix sites and look at the Security bulletins posted for various *nix binaries - they are updated almost daily. Some of the binaries which have security issues, by the way, remain unpatched.

It is not Microsoft's fault people choose to run as Administrators, rather than setting themselves up an account to run as a User. Has anyone here making these comments actually set up and run Windows XP from a User account? Why don't you download the Baseline Secure User Profile, setup a user using that profile and see if you can crack it. I wish you the best of luck.

I've administered Windows and Unix platforms for over 5 years professionally. And up until about 2 years ago, Unix was better - certainly more reliable... that's not the case anymore. Windows XP SP2 and Windows 2003 Server really raised the bar.

Back on Topic; We're talking about Clustering, not security here... I wish I could post some of the stuff I see and get from Microsoft here, but can't because of NDAs.

[Sasq]

your buying the M$ get the facts about the linux updates. seperate the security bulitens for core systems out verses the latex, gui, small side line util packages that don't compromise secuirty unless you happen to be actually sitting at the console.

and I am very aware of some of the things M$ is comming out with. I am also very very aware, of all of my customers who are very very unsatisfied with not only M$'s forced upgrade path/cycle, but are damn tired of security issues with windows.

I'm sorry MMM but we shall have to disagree on which is more secure. to put it rather bluntly you seem to have bought into microsofts get the facts campain, without looking much further - oh special tip, the yankee group is a paid M$ shill

[MultimediaMan]

Sasq... Forced? Didn't someone by the name of Linus drop support for older Linux Kernels?

How does that not force an upgrade? How many binaries had to be rewritten?

How many Binaries have yet to be rewritten?

How many Kernel changes has 2.6 gone through that require binary recompiles from Source? How many important binaries still have yet to be ported to 2.6? Quite a few.

Console level exploits? Gee, those apply to desktop systems, don't they? Because, after all, they have Console-Level access right?

When was the last time you administered Windows?

[Sasq]

about 35 mins ago.

now, lets see here, linus is in charge of a kernel, not a distro.

redhat et al still support the 2.4 kernel, and backport the needed security fixes, it's their job, not linus's. linus is a developer, not a legacy maintainer.

how many binaries need to be rewritten etc for xp-64 and vista?
at least I can recompile my kernel modules against the kernel source.

Now, which important binaries are those that still need to be ported to 2.6?


but first off, lets talk a little bit about binaries shall we? your thinking from a windows persepective where you don't get source code.
I get source code.
I can also apply diff patches to source code so I can recompile if needed.

RHES3 is a 2.4 kernel, it is still support, actually, it runs this server.
It will be supported for many more years yet.

As for desktop systems, were talking servers MMM stop diverting the conversation. the wookie does not work.

[Sasq]

lets just clarify a few other things.
1) if you have physical access to a pc, the biatch is yours. regardless of OS.
2) everything you have said, is straight from the 'get the facts' campain, so don't bother quoting it.

[DGhost]

MS is decades behind *nix clustering, I doubt version 1.0 will be comparible to a beowulf cluster on the same hardware.

*cough*

ughhh, right.

The theory behind Linux clustering: with enough horsepower behind you, you don't need to steer.

[Sasq]

*cough*

ughhh, right.

The theory behind Linux clustering: with enough horsepower behind you, you don't need to steer.

see, now, that is a realistic problem - although being adressed.
Nix has many issues to deal with, it is not perfect or the be all and end all.

I am more then happy to list my gripes and bitches with it. but that is not for this thread.