Re: "success"
"John L. Bass" <jbass-/[email protected]> Sat, 21 Oct 2006 01:44:08 -0600
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.distributed-net.hardware |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Kris Amy wrote: >What is actually required in terms of hardware for this? > >I'm just browsing around on that website and unsure of what you need. > > Hi Kris, There is a solution space for nearly every type of FPGA, ranging from fully unrolled solutions that run one key per clock, to tightly rolled bit/digit serial designs that will fit hundreds/thousands of engines that will require around 2,500 clocks per key, and a solution every few clocks. Bit/Digit serial designs can be run nearly at max clock rate for the FPGA, while parallel designs have deeper combinatorials and more routing delays and will need to have the clock rate tuned to the designs internal latencies. Thermally, and power wise, the bit/digit serial designs are superior as they suffer much less from excess logic transitions in multilevel combinatorial parallel solutions. You can also fully pack nearly any device, where large parallel solutions will have large unused areas, unless you also pack them with rolled or bit/digit serial engines too. In every case, these design will have a VERY high utilization, with toggle rates over short periods of time that are near 100% for serial designs (worst case) and between 25-50% for parallel designs. This consumes a lot of power (more than most student boards can provide), and heat that generally requires extreme measures to cool, like using high end overclockers solutions (water cooling) for the largest devices. Some devices, like older large Virtex, Virtex-E, and Virtex-2 products are unstable even with extreme engineering solutions for the power and heat. Current Virtex-4 and Virtex-5 devices in BGA packages are better, and might actually be stable with extreme engineering for power and cooling. In short, this is very feasible, fast, and may require some REAL worst case engineering for larger FPGAs, and some smaller ones. Current FPGA vendors do not spec the worst case numbers, so some careful application/design specific in system measuring and derating will have to occur for FPGA key cracking systems to be stable and error free. On DIE termals will certainly have to be monitored, with external over temp measures implemented to keep from reducing an expensive FPGA to burn out trash (I've created a few termally failed Virtex FPGAs already). I haven't done the math for a couple years, but with the largest Virtex-5 devices, and a design optimized for 5-LUTs and 6-LUTs with agressive fiting to use support logic (muxes, expander and carry logic) in a digit serial configuration, should yeild an aggregate performance such that a hundred or two of these large FPGAs are as fast as all the member processors in DNet. Maybe less FPGAs. The easiest way to do bit/digit serial designs is as a schematic macro (core), that is then hand/script tiled with LOCs and wired to common support logic with a script generated HDL high level design. This is necessary to avoid routing delays, and routing congestion, and should produce a max clock rate design (inside your power/cooling limits) that is nearly 100% utilized. Anticipate that you will have some stability problems with power/thermal doing this ... possibly fatal ones, and you may have to derate the device to protect it from failure, or get stable operation. _______________________________________________ Hardware mailing list Hardware-Ra3b/QYEcJ3d140v2zMXi0fjHoOT/h/[email protected] http://lists.distributed.net/mailman/listinfo/hardware