Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> So you suggest one renders the even and another the odd indexed frames?  Or
> do you suggest that the beginning and the end of a sequence take long and
> you divide them such that one renders from beginning to the middle of the
> sequence and the other from the end to the middle of the sequence?  Why
> would it have to work backwards in either case?  The speed would be the same
> regardless of sequence direction!

  No, I mean that one process starts from the beginning and the other from
the end, and when they meet at the same frame, they stop.
  (Yes, this needs communication between the two processes.)

> No, this would not distribute perfectly regardless of the image except
> trivial cases.  In fact it would be very far away from perfect distribution
> as each and every pixel can take a "random" amount of time.

  As someone else said, I was talking about distributing the rendering
effort among both processors. The idea is exactly the same as above
(ie. when the two processes meet at the same pixel, they stop).

  (In the case of rendering a single image with two processors mutual
exclusion problems don't really matter, as it's not too dangerous if
the two processes happen to render the same pixel before stopping.)

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message