The presentation Platform puts on the web: Performance, Scalability, Robustness LSF 5 Closest Competitor Clusters 100+ 1 CPUs 200000+ 300 Jobs 500000+ ~10000+ (active across clusters) Fairshare Utilization ~100% ~50% Query Time 20% better than 40% slower LSF 4.2 than LSF 5 Scheduler Usage 4K/job 28K/job My first question is, how did Platform come up with the numbers? Did they measure their "Closest Competitor" in their _own_ lab, with their _own_ engineers? M$ pays for other companies to do the job. Granted, Platform is not as rich as M$, but may be they should provide more detail about the setup? (And may be the presentations they show on customers sites are more interesting, but we just don't know!) I mentioned some of this before: Clusters: SGE, PBS can use Globus, Silver, and other meta schedulers. Silver can scale over 100 clusters too. CPUs: a university runs SGE on a 1300 hosts cluster, and the FSL runs SGE on their 768 node, 1536 CPU cluster. Scheduler usage: from my measurement, SGE schedd only uses 4.5 K/job, which is around 9K/job peak. Jobs (active across clusters): LSF: 500000+ (and they said they have 100+ clusters) So, SGE with meta-scheduler can get: ~10000+ * 100 = ~1,000,000+ Compare to LSF 5: 500,000+ What has happened? May be I am an idiot, Chris :) Please help me to the math, thanks. I don't have a large cluster to do the other measurements, but it would be intesting to find out how Platform got the numbers. -Ron --- chris dagdigian <dag@sonsorol.org> wrote: > > Your advocacy efforts have the potential to do the > same harm to Grid > Engine as the rabid "if it's not GNU/Linux it's > shit!" crowd. You > obviously know what you are talking about and your > effort is really > important but in recent times some sort of other > personal agenda or > vendetta has been creeping into your posts and > tainting your message. > > Platform Computing is not "the enemy". > > Commercial software is not "the enemy". > > Choosing a DRM layer is one of the single most > important decisions made > for any given clustering project. The decision > should be made after > carefully evaluating the options and choosing the > one that works best > for the project, budget, use cases and situation. As > I said in a > previous post I use both SGE and LSF in my daily > work. > > More comments below... > > Ron Chen wrote: > > IMO, Platform is not that friendly. They like to > > spread FUD about other products, e.g. They said > that > > PBS can't handle over 5000 jobs, and someone told > me > > that they said similar things about SGE. > > > > Platform techies, engineers, developers and support > staff have always > been friendly and professional. I've had developers > in Beijing and > Toronto go _way_ out of their way to help me out > whenever I've needed a > hand. Same with the SGE developers and people on the > sge mailing lists. > Techies in general are Good People. > > Platform salespeople on the other hand have > sometimes been arrogant and > complacent. For a long time they had a lock on what > was unquestionably > the best product in the space and they charged and > acted accordingly. > > This has changed now that there is way more > competition especially in > the Linux clustering space. The salespeople are > hungry and responsive > now. Trust me :) > > Platform sales people have never been as aggressive > or as creepy as EMC > salespeople though. Wow those dudes were like a > cult. > > Regarding FUD > > Much of the FUD comes from salespeople who have been > given competitive > briefing information on other products that is > usually not up-to-date. > > OpenPBS _did_ have problems handling more than 5,000 > jobs at a time > > OpenPBS _did_ have documented problems with > submitted jobs just > *vanishing* from the system -- a critical flaw in my > mind. > > GridEngine did have its growing pains; even in the > biocluster space > > The real problem (I think) was that by the time this > news filtered out > from the community and into the hands of the > Platform salespeople the > initial bugs/issues had been fixed. > > So the problem really with the salespeople is that > they know their own > product in its current incarnation extremely well > but have been briefed > on "old" products put out by the competition. This > makes them look bad > when talking to super-educated customers. > > The best way to fight FUD is with the truth. If > anyone has recent FUD > stories to share from a recent Platform sales pitch > I'd love to hear > about it in this forum. > > > > (In fact, since LSF is not free, they should > compare > > LSF with PBSPro. And also, I started using SGE > from > > the very beginning, and I know that even early > > versions of SGE can handle many more jobs than > that!) > > The reason everyone has to compare/contrast against > OpenPBS is that > every single lame-ass wannabe cluster vendor seems > to have just lazily > stuck a OpenPBS RPM into their cluster image and > started calling it a > "turnkey solution". > > SGE has also had its growing pains and bad > deployment stories which is > where I'm sure some of the SGE FUD is coming from. I > do think however > that SGE is improving and adding new functionality > at a totally amazing > rate. > > > > > > http://www.beowulf.org/pipermail/beowulf/2001-October/001486.html > > > http://bioinformatics.org/pipermail/bioclusters/2001-October/000035.html > > > > > Also, both PBS and SGE follow DRMAA, but Platform > > pushes NPI -- the LSF API as the "standard". > > > > Both DRMAA and NPI seem to be coming from the Global > Grid Forum (GGF) > these days. I know Platform is involved at some > level with GGF. > > Anyone from Platform or GGF who can chime in on what > the current > situation is? What's up with NPI vs DRMAA? > > > > Do you think we should support these kind of > > companies? > > > > -Ron > > Platform is not evil. Selling & supporting good > software is not wrong. > > === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com