I’ve worked on several systems that had enough flop/s to make it in the top 5-10, but for which we never submitted benchmarks. Sometimes their backend network layout technically would make them several smaller clusters for an HPL run, sometimes it’s because the cluster is too heterogeneous to get a good benchmark result, and sometimes it’s because the employer wants to keep a low profile.
Most of the time, it just that it’s a hassle. It takes a while to prep and tune a big hero run for benchmarking, and if you spend a billion dollars on a cluster, it’s making you a lot more than that. Taking it down for a day or two stops the money printers.
You still need to traverse physical segments in the wireless path: think receiving dish to the next transmitting dish, the end of the path to get from the trading systems onto the roof and into to the first dish, etc. Every nanosecond counts.
> I'm sure some HFT traders are going to make an absolute fortune, but I doubt it'll have a huge impact for most other people.
They’ve been using hollow core fiber (and funding research into it) for nearly a decade. I know it goes back further than the 2017 spinoff mentioned in the article, but https://optics.org/news/11/9/52 talks about it a bit.
Most of the time, it just that it’s a hassle. It takes a while to prep and tune a big hero run for benchmarking, and if you spend a billion dollars on a cluster, it’s making you a lot more than that. Taking it down for a day or two stops the money printers.