Microsoft goes gold on Compute Cluster Server 2003

If you're the type to resort to the "imagine a Beowulf cluster of those" cliche, you may want to avert your eyes now. But those who've already hacked their MSN TV and Xbox to cluster compute might want to know that it looks like Microsoft's gone gold on their Compute Cluster Server 2003 high-performance computing OS, only about 8 months late. They're only asking a mere $496 per quad-core node, which should be a relatively easy sell considering the competition is open, free, and doesn't use a date that's three years past in the title of their product. Oh, wait. By the way, sysadmins, have we mentioned recently that we have a distributed computing team? Because we do!

[Sasha S. @ Jun 9th 2006 12:32PM]

This is just another proof that Microsoft is less and less relevant in the modern computing. Despite predominance of Windows on the Desktop, prudent sysadmins and IT managers should start looking into alternatives before it is too late (read: someone locks them into Vista.

[Derrick @ Jun 9th 2006 12:57PM]

Hahaha.... you never look back once you switch to Linux. For Linux based HPC, the cost is $0 per node. IIRC, I read an article about Google's Linux cluster. You plug the server into the network and it will download a Linux kernel and joins the Google Linux cluster. That's no per node cost. This is mind boggling but Google is running on a mass distributed cluster of possibily a million Linux servers.

[Steve Jobs @ Jun 9th 2006 1:02PM]

Compute Cluster Server 2003?

Isn't 2006 half over? Go MS!

[loikll @ Jun 9th 2006 1:47PM]

Awesome, just think how fast these supercomputers will be able to run ActiveX malware, and then Spybot, and AdAware, and anti-virus scans, and then re-boot after the crashes! Wait til these monsters get coopted by spam hackers!

I hear some of these beowulf clusters can run a complete Blue Screen of Death in under 60 seconds!

[Spoonman @ Jun 9th 2006 1:53PM]

>> you never look back once you switch to Linux.

Not true. Some of us don't want to have to work that hard.

[Alucard @ Jun 9th 2006 2:34PM]

Gee, if they weren't so busy trying to strangle google/yahoo/apple they might have finished this 3 years ago!

[Whiplash @ Jun 9th 2006 2:43PM]

Wow look at that picture. Server towers on regular warehouse racking. Nice. Time to buy some new stock photos guys! ;-)

[Michael @ Jun 9th 2006 3:08PM]

The name: it's based on Windows Server '2003' x64. The price: that's street price, don't be fooled by the street. HPC Linux clusters: free like a puppy. Actual informed viewpoints: http://www.hpcwire.com/hpc/686956.html and http://scalability.org/?p=69

[Bobby @ Jun 9th 2006 4:31PM]

Hey. This comment doesn't have to do with this post, so sorry. I saw the post about the Halloween costumes, and my friend and I have a question. Is there any way you can hook us up with Cam R.'s email address, as we are trying to create fully functional Daft Punk helmets. We would appreaciate this very much, as we've searched the internet and can't find any information on the helmets at all. Thanks for your time.

- Bobby

[till @ Jun 11th 2006 6:35PM]

Windows Compute Cluster the Edition we should have launched in 2003...

just goes to show how crappy windows has become !!

[Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Jun 12th 2006 11:08AM]

Linux isn't panacea. Many people sit *BSD too.

Needless to say, many admins often work under Windows with SSH/VNC to connect to their servers.

But otherwise it's mostly true: people, once learned that something under Linux/BSD "just works", never look back.