On 2 Mar 2005, at 5:59 am, James Cuff wrote: > mpiblast works. Really very well for certain problems. There I said > it. > > Guy and Tim will probably never forgive me... I think I may have been > the > original 'embarrassingly parallel is the only way, nothing else will > ever > give the throughput, yada, yada' advocate... Aargh - he's gone over to the Dark Side!!! Seriously, I agree with you. MPIBlast gets you fast turnaround for single very large searches. I still think for the things Sanger are doing we do better with the embarrassingly parallel model, but I wouldn't claim that it's always the right solution (at least not any more, he said, covering his tracks in case he's ever said exactly that somewhere in the past) >> Note: We have not built the mpiblast RPM for Itanium (nor for that >> matter, any of our RPMs). Is there any interest in this? Curious. > > Shame they cost so darn much, well ours do, but folk keep demanding me > to > cram 64GB in them for something called whole genome assembly. I just > can't for the life of me understand why they cost so much :-) It's a good argument for getting people to write more memory-efficient code: "And just how many times your annual salary does the memory you're asking for cost?" Tim -- Dr Tim Cutts Informatics Systems Group, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute GPG: 1024D/E3134233 FE3D 6C73 BBD6 726A A3F5 860B 3CDD 3F56 E313 4233