Air Force Unhappy With Removal of Linux from PS3

[buckinbottoms]

[citation][nom]techguy911[/nom]Actually no they can't do those type of calculations with any accuracy that is why they chose the ps3 the cell does certain types of calculations much faster than anything you can use in a pc.I was posting about this before if you think about it at some time all fat ps3 with other os options will no longer exist because nothing lasts forever at that point the military,researchers will be out of luck.It would be in there best interest to join the class action lawsuit even if they get sony to repair and keep original firmware would be worth it or old firmware because i don't think firmware allows you to flash older versions only newer.[/citation]
it would be in their best interest to go to IBM and have a server with the cell processor built for them. Using a consumer product with an EOL is fail.

 

[dark_lord69]

[citation][nom]speedemon[/nom]better keep the room cool and dust free...[/citation]

Have you ever been in a server room?
The one where I work is always cool kept at a certain humidity and is very clean.

 

[zaznet]

[citation][nom]jhansonxi[/nom]Sony should make a blade server based on the chip.[/citation]

The chip was designed to go into other systems than the PS3. In fact it's already been done. The IBM QS20, QS21 and QS22 blades use the cell architecture.

http://www.research.ibm.com/cell/cell_systems.html

http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/rep_ca/7/897/ENUS106-677/index.html
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/bladecenter/hardware/servers/qs22/index.html

So if the USAF wishes to use cell processor based computers for a super computer they have options out there that are designed for that purpose. It was nice that you could do it with the PS3 console out of the box but it was never sold for that purpose.

 

[dark_lord69]

[citation][nom]drowned[/nom]It wouldn't surprise me if Sony makes a "special" (ie old version) PS3 for the Air Force. It's like Vegas...you give whatever your high rollers want.[/citation]

It WOULD surprise me. Sony losses money on each PS3 sold. They make a profit with video games and sales of movies and other content. The Air Force won't be buying anything (games, movies, etc) to help Sony make up thier loss. Which means what you said WILL NOT HAPPEN unless the air force decides to pay MORE than retail so Sony can make a bit of profit.

 

[zaznet]

[citation][nom]dark_lord69[/nom]unless the air force decides to pay MORE than retail so Sony can make a bit of profit.[/citation]

That's what Sony would need to do and it would start to become more expensive as parts became less common for the older model PS3. This is exactly why using systems like the PS3 is a bad business decision in the long run and why customers like the USAF should start using data center purposed hardware for their data center needs.

A main reason data center server costs so much is the supplier is going to guarantee replacement hardware (in event of failures) to match the purchase for a period of time. In some cases the hardware becomes cheaper over time (at least for high end hardware still well inside it's life cycle) but in many cases as hardware stops being produced it becomes much more expensive.

The Air Force got their bang for the buck and if they still need such a system it's time to start looking for better long term alternatives.

 

[hennnry]

When Sony sold you the PS3, it reserved its right to modify the content and feature on the box. So by that contract alone, you actually can't sue Sony. This contract, of course does not prevent you to sue it, just as how BlockBuster had us sign the late fee thing, but still end up losing the class action lawsuit.

However, if you believe that Sony breach the contract by removing the feature, people can literally sue Sony for adding feature too. And everybody should sue Microsoft for bricking their system because by the same token, Microsoft just break its contract as well.

 

[wildwell]

I wouldn't be surprised if Sony will install the previous OS on repaired models for the USAF if they request it.

 

[surfer1337dude]

[citation][nom]zaznet[/nom]The chip was designed to go into other systems than the PS3. In fact it's already been done. The IBM QS20, QS21 and QS22 blades use the cell architecture.http://www.research.ibm.com/cell/cell_systems.htmlhttp://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/r [...] index.htmlhttp://www-03.ibm.com/systems/blad [...] index.htmlSo if the USAF wishes to use cell processor based computers for a super computer they have options out there that are designed for that purpose. It was nice that you could do it with the PS3 console out of the box but it was never sold for that purpose.[/citation]
And how much are the blades? Also does that include a high def output for the video? Remember the reason the USAF wanted the ps3 is that it has such good/fast processing plus the high def of the RSX computing together. Also remember that each ps3 only calculates a small section of each map (so the entire map is extremely detailed with high def ). For price vs performance the USAF chose the correct product since a GPU + CPU of equivalent talent would still cost more then the ps3.

Also the PS3 does have a lack of memory compared to a computer, but keep in mind the speed of the memory along with the fact that games have found a way around this issue so the USAF has as well (plus only needing to process a small section of a map at extremely high def. would be the same of playing a game at high def since an image is easier to render and calculate [compared to special effects and all other objects/users/etc in a video game.])

 

[BlueCat57]

Reminds me of a story I read about why some older CPUs are so valuable. The military and the Space Shuttle use relatively old technology. The cost of upgrading those systems is enormous even when you can just print money. (As a side note it still blows my mind that the SR71 was designed with slide rulers. Maybe that's why we can build 'em like they used to.)

For example when the Post Office went to POS terminals they couldn't just put them in their highest volume locations, they had to put them in ALL their locations. They couldn't just put one in each location, they had to put them at EVERY counter station. So when it comes to upgrades they can't just upgrade the most used terminals they have to upgrade EVERY terminal. So a $10 upgrade or change costs millions of dollars plus training time.

For the military and Space Shuttle the cost of design, testing, procurment, etc. means that if it works don't mess with the specs. So when they want to buy a new-in-box x86 chip they pay whatever the owner demands. I just saw a SpeedTV clip where the guy pays $700 for a NIB mirror with a clock in it from the 50's. Likewise for computer parts needed to keep our military humming.

 

[zaznet]

[citation][nom]surfer1337dude[/nom]For price vs performance the USAF chose the correct product[/citation]

No data center hardware is ever going to match a consumer grade system on price to performance. That's never the intention. Someone mentioned blades with a Cell CPU and I provided information that one already existed (and is in it's 3rd generation).

For what the USAF needs there is a viable data center system available for it which will support whatever OS they want to use for the life of the product and likely beyond. The PS3 was not that option (not for the life of the PS3 product line anyway). This is why I think they made a bad business decision going with the cheapest bang for their buck to start with. In the long run does it have a good return on the investment? I would love to see the USAF do a projection on the return on their investment a few years from now when they can't replace failed PS3s.

 

[tlmck]

Sounds like a business opportunity for somebody to make a low cost PS3ish clone to run Linux instead of games. Leaving off the useless Blue Ray drive would certainly cut the cost.

 

[JohnnyLucky]

What exactly did the US Air Force want to do with the PS3 cluster? What kind of data did they want to process?

 

[bochica]

[citation][nom]JohnnyLucky[/nom]What exactly did the US Air Force want to do with the PS3 cluster? What kind of data did they want to process?[/citation]

Combat Terrain Imagery.

 

[hemelskonijn]

[citation][nom]zaznet[/nom]No data center hardware is ever going to match a consumer grade system on price to performance. That's never the intention. Someone mentioned blades with a Cell CPU and I provided information that one already existed (and is in it's 3rd generation).For what the USAF needs there is a viable data center system available for it which will support whatever OS they want to use for the life of the product and likely beyond. The PS3 was not that option (not for the life of the PS3 product line anyway). This is why I think they made a bad business decision going with the cheapest bang for their buck to start with. In the long run does it have a good return on the investment? I would love to see the USAF do a projection on the return on their investment a few years from now when they can't replace failed PS3s.[/citation]

A system with comparable computing power would cost at least ten times as much (and that not even that optimistic) and since the custom linux distro render engines and other software are extremely scalable they can actually expand this current setup for just the cost of more consoles.
Lets say the average life time of a super computer (before they are in need of a new one not before they dump the old one) is about 10 years meaning for about 10% of the price they have 160+% of the performance for at least 33% of the lifespan.

For as far as the 256megs limitation goes this is no problem if the system is running in optimized routines keep in mind that the ram in the playstation 3 is way faster then the ram in our generic pc's and has a advanced form of ECC. The reason we all crunch with overpowered systems is because our software and games are badly optimized.

 

[micky_lund]

[citation][nom]victomofreality[/nom]that will never happen cuz sony doesn't have oil...[/citation]
OH SNAP!

 

[Guest]

Here's something that nobody's thought of...

Why would they enable LINUX? Because they're losing money from all the sales of people who want to cluster the systems?

Sony does NOT MAKE MONEY SELLING THE CONSOLES. They actually lose money from the consoles. They make their money back, selling games.

As bad as it is for the customer (us), Sony doesn't CARE. They save the money they would lose for every console sold to a cluster, because the Air Force isn't going to buy a single game with those 2,000 new consoles it wanted to buy.

Clusters actually HURT Sony's profits. I can see, from a business standpoint, that this single reason makes a lot of sense for dropping Linux.

 

[bochica]

Sony only loses $18 per unit from the slims, and this was before the RSX die shrink. Now that the RSX has finally caught up, Sony will start seeing a profit in each unit. If people still buy the "fat" versions new, Sony will see a loss in that only.

 

[Guest]

Yes and the PS3 fats are the only ones that had Linux support. Thus, my earlier point: They LOSE money to every PS3 sold to a cluster.