SGI's first Linux-based Visualization System

SGI hardware problems, solutions, tips, hacks, etc.
Forum rules
Any posts concerning pirated software or offering to buy/sell/trade commercial software are subject to removal.
User avatar
Dubhthach
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:16 am
Location: Bláth Cliath, Éire

Unread postby Dubhthach » Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:03 am

Seems like they are also marketing some sorta emulation software (like FX32! on Alpha) that allows you to run your IRIX/mips binaries on Linux/Itanium. I had read something about that awhile ago on realworldtech.com
"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better"

User avatar
Dubhthach
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:16 am
Location: Bláth Cliath, Éire

Unread postby Dubhthach » Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:04 am

Name: Arun Ramakrishnan (mailto:arunr@sgi.com) 10/11/04

Andi Kleen (mailto:a@b.c) on 10/11/04 wrote:
---------------------------
>On the SGI page for the Prism they announced the MIPS->IA64 emulator Arun was talking about earlier:
>
>http://www.sgi.com/products/visualization/prism/features.html
>>
>
>"QuickTransit dynamic translator Run existing IRIX applications*"
>
>* Check with your local SGI sales representative for IRIX application compatability and pricing
>
>I suspect it is more difficult to emulate Irix on Linux
>than MIPS on IA64.
>

Andi,in case of IRIX it was a more of a problem of resources.
Here i think Intel may have some role in funding quicktransit and the quick transit guys had help from our kernel developers to make sure the performance of this product is really competitive.

This is just being used to bring apps from irix to linux mainly in the graphics side .
Some of those apps dont even have any source code left !!!
Some of others have been ported from irix to windows by ISVs but they dont believe in linux yet.
So this proves to be a good starting point for encouraging them to run it on Prizm first and then coax them to port it over to Linux.

Of course,Quicktransit cant help apps which use the Irix real time features,xfs GRIO features or IR(Infinite Reality) specific hardware hacks :-)

Byt hey something is better than nothing :-)

And the first few weeks of running Maya on Prizm under quick transit,it was already faster than a IR based system.
Now then what would happen if this app was running natively on IA64 Linux is what excites us.

Cheers,
Arun

Cheers,
Arun
"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better"

User avatar
mia
Posts: 1055
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 1:54 pm

Unread postby mia » Mon Oct 11, 2004 2:27 pm



Way cool to see that Maya works on so many different SGI/mips configurations.

User avatar
colin
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:43 pm
Location: Lubbock, Texas
Contact:

Unread postby colin » Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:05 pm

[quote="Jason"]Way cool to see that Maya works on so many different SGI/mips configurations.[/quote]
Yeah, but the list of known bugs has been growing since version 3.0.

User avatar
themacosxflies
Posts: 943
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 6:53 am
Location: great empire in the distant past
Contact:

Unread postby themacosxflies » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:01 am

Time to update the SGI.com Image Library !
We are here on Earth to do good to others. What the others are here for, I don't know.

User avatar
jan-jaap
Donor
Donor
Posts: 4940
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:35 am
Location: Wijchen, The Netherlands
Contact:

Unread postby jan-jaap » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:18 am



That's the x86 version of Maya.
As we all know, the x86 code execution speed of the Itanic is best described as "pathetic" . :twisted:

Futhermore, this little blurb doesn't sound good:

Code: Select all

Maya 6.0 is currently Unsupported on the following 64-bit systems:
Itanium:    Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS (Intel Itanium)

User avatar
hamei
Posts: 10435
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: over the rainbow

Unread postby hamei » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:23 am

jan-jaap wrote: As we all know, the x86 code execution speed of the Itanic is best described as "pathetic" . :twisted:


From what I understand the Itanic is a lot like RISC in some ways - execution speed is very dependent on smart compilers. So what do they have on Linux ? Gcc ? hmmm.

Brombear
Posts: 786
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:42 am
Location: Frankfurt (Rhein-Main Area) / Germany
Contact:

Unread postby Brombear » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:26 am

hamei wrote:From what I understand the Itanic is a lot like RISC in some ways - execution speed is very dependent on smart compilers. So what do they have on Linux ? Gcc ? hmmm.


I believe the intel compiler (icc) is used on these machines. Hard to guess its performance without real tests though

Matthias
Life is what happens while we are making other plans

User avatar
squeen
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 6:10 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Unread postby squeen » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:31 am

I once attended an SGI/Intel presentation that talked about the Intel compilers on IA64, and how the GCC stuff would (because of some such optimization) run at best 75% the speed and how the AMD folks would not longer be able to cross compile. Sounded like Microsoft tactics to me at the time....

User avatar
hamei
Posts: 10435
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: over the rainbow

Unread postby hamei » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:36 am

Brombear wrote:
hamei wrote:From what I understand the Itanic is a lot like RISC in some ways - execution speed is very dependent on smart compilers. So what do they have on Linux ? Gcc ? hmmm.


I believe the intel compiler (icc) is used on these machines. Hard to guess its performance without real tests though


I just know what I've read about developers in the HP camp screaming bloody murder about "no tools ! no tools ! where the hell are all the optimized tools you promised us ?" Meanwhile Carly bibble-babbles on about how wonderful everything is ... if you can believe the Register, HP users are not happy campers about Itanic.

How long did it take MIPSPro to become really effective ?

User avatar
RageX
Donor
Donor
Posts: 490
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 5:32 pm
Location: New York

Unread postby RageX » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:58 am

hamei wrote:
jan-jaap wrote: As we all know, the x86 code execution speed of the Itanic is best described as "pathetic" . :twisted:

From what I understand the Itanic is a lot like RISC in some ways - execution speed is very dependent on smart compilers. So what do they have on Linux ? Gcc ? hmmm.

x86 code is slow on Itanium because it is run in some sort of emulation mode. SGI uses the Intel compilers on their Linux systems. I've heard that they're very good and getting better. GCC as always is behind compared to the official compilers.

Also, Pro/E on Linux is still around. But PTC droped support for Itanium (in favor of x86-64/EMT64) maybe six months ago.

User avatar
Dubhthach
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:16 am
Location: Bláth Cliath, Éire

Unread postby Dubhthach » Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:32 am

From what i hear the HP itanium compilers are the best however they are only available on HP-UX and OpenVMS (well when the VMS port is finished) as for Itanium performance running x86 code. Well most of the slowness was due to the fact that the chip had dedicated area to x86 however very little attention was put into improving it. Last i heard it gave the same performance as a low Pentium II (on Itanium 2) it's been ditched from future versions and been replaced with a software approach, akin to FX32! that ran on Alpha. Intel actually got that and other DEC IP (eg. Alpha) after the Compaq and HP merger.
"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better"

User avatar
dexter1
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2743
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 6:57 am
Location: Zoetermeer, The Netherlands

Unread postby dexter1 » Tue Oct 12, 2004 6:17 am

hamei wrote:
Brombear wrote:
hamei wrote:From what I understand the Itanic is a lot like RISC in some ways - execution speed is very dependent on smart compilers. So what do they have on Linux ? Gcc ? hmmm.


I believe the intel compiler (icc) is used on these machines. Hard to guess its performance without real tests though


I just know what I've read about developers in the HP camp screaming bloody murder about "no tools ! no tools ! where the hell are all the optimized tools you promised us ?"


It's not icc and ifc/ifort, but ecc and efc/efort on Itanium systems. And there is one performance tool you can run on an itanium, because of its specific counter registers included in the CPU core.
The tool is called HistX and can be downloaded from the SGI site:

http://www.sgi.com/products/evaluation/altix_histx/

But i admit, i miss ssrun/cvd/perfex on Itanium systems. Also, there's a lot of funky performance issues like some code running like mad on the PIV Xeon will crawl on Itanium. And you're completely dependent on ecc for your optimisations, so no pragma's like on MIPS will help you. I have seen and tested an Itanium2 1.5 GHz with 3MB cache to be slightly slower than a PIV Xeon 3.05GHz with respect to floating point fortran code. And considering a dual Itanium2 machine costs triple the amount of a dual PIV machine, the choice is easily made...

User avatar
jan-jaap
Donor
Donor
Posts: 4940
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:35 am
Location: Wijchen, The Netherlands
Contact:

Unread postby jan-jaap » Tue Oct 12, 2004 6:44 am

RageX wrote:GCC as always is behind compared to the official compilers.


You may be right for non-x86 platforms. The fact that itanic leaves a lot of work to the compiler, and the companies involved then patented that work doesn't help either. But on x86, gcc-3.4 will perform roughly on par with icc.

In fact, numerical kernels like atlas perform very close to cpu peak performance when compiled with either of them. If you want to bash a compiler, try MSVC.

Don't take my word for it, but do some tests yourself. I did :D

User avatar
skywriter
Posts: 3292
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2003 5:22 am
Location: Trump-proof bunker
Contact:

Unread postby skywriter » Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:33 am

i like the cabinet style...


Return to “SGI: Hardware”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 1 guest