 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek wrote:
>
> So, what do you think? What sort of system should I build?
>
http://www.top500.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek wrote:
>
> Has anyone attempted such a thing? Is there software/OS's available that will
> let a network of PCs emulate a multi-processor system?
may be http://www.mosix.org/ ?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thierry Boudet" <oul### [at] chez com> wrote in message
news:40660c4c$1@news.povray.org...
> Tek wrote:
> > Has anyone attempted such a thing? Is there software/OS's available that
will
> > let a network of PCs emulate a multi-processor system?
>
> may be http://www.mosix.org/ ?
Ooh, that looks interesting!
Now all I need is a parallel processing version of POV and lots of PCs...
--
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmm. just had a thought.. There is a program called Synergy out that lets
you control two networked machines with the same keyboard and mouse.
There is an article on TechTV about it at:
http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/downloadoftheday/story/0,24330,3647418
,00.html
This might actually make managing two or more machines easier. It runs on
both Windows and Linux. Haven't tried it myself, but then I haven't got
anything networked to try it with. It definitely looked interesting
though.
--
void main () {
call functional_code()
else
call crash_windows();
}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in news:406601ba$1@news.povray.org:
> I'm getting confused, what system are you saying I should buy?
>
Amiga ;)
--
Tom
_________________________________
The Internet Movie Project
http://www.imp.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in news:406601ba$1@news.povray.org:
>
>
>>I'm getting confused, what system are you saying I should buy?
>>
>
>
> Amiga ;)
>
Yeah! Amiga rules!!!
--
Laurent ARTAUD (lau### [at] freefr)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "Thierry Boudet" <oul### [at] chezcom> wrote in message
> news:40660c4c$1@news.povray.org...
>
>>Tek wrote:
>>
>>>Has anyone attempted such a thing? Is there software/OS's available that
>
> will
>
>>>let a network of PCs emulate a multi-processor system?
>>
>> may be http://www.mosix.org/ ?
>
>
> Ooh, that looks interesting!
> Now all I need is a parallel processing version of POV and lots of PCs...
>
Well, you should prefer "http://openmosix.sourceforge.net/"...
Regards,
--
Laurent ARTAUD (lau### [at] freefr)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Even better!
--
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com
"laurent.artaud[AT]free.fr" <"laurent.artaud[AT]free.fr"> wrote in message
news:406674fd@news.povray.org...
> > "Thierry Boudet" <oul### [at] chezcom> wrote in message
> > news:40660c4c$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> >>Tek wrote:
> >>
> >>>Has anyone attempted such a thing? Is there software/OS's available that
> >
> > will
> >
> >>>let a network of PCs emulate a multi-processor system?
> >>
> >> may be http://www.mosix.org/ ?
> >
> >
> > Ooh, that looks interesting!
> > Now all I need is a parallel processing version of POV and lots of PCs...
> >
>
> Well, you should prefer "http://openmosix.sourceforge.net/"...
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Laurent ARTAUD (lau### [at] freefr)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Interesting, though I'm not sure that it really saves me much work since the
more difficult thing is farming out rendering of *different* sections of the
scene...
In fact, what I'd want would be a way to execute pov remotely on a linux machine
by invoking it from my windows machine.
--
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com
"Patrick Elliott" <sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:MPG.1acfe5462ad64919899fa@news.povray.org...
> Hmm. just had a thought.. There is a program called Synergy out that lets
> you control two networked machines with the same keyboard and mouse.
> There is an article on TechTV about it at:
>
> http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/downloadoftheday/story/0,24330,3647418
> ,00.html
>
> This might actually make managing two or more machines easier. It runs on
> both Windows and Linux. Haven't tried it myself, but then I haven't got
> anything networked to try it with. It definitely looked interesting
> though.
>
> --
> void main () {
> call functional_code()
> else
> call crash_windows();
> }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> This is true for the *CPU*. However, it's not the CPU which handles
> the floating point code, but the FPU.
> The FPU is completely separate from the CPU. The FPU has eight 80-bit
Well, you seems to mix CPU and ALU:
ALU stands for Arithmetic and Logic Unit. It is the part of the chip
that compute on integers.
The ALU and the FPU are separate, but are both inside the CPU.
> registers and it performs all floating point operations on them. I don't
> know, however, if the FPU is able to load 64 and 80-bit floats directly
> from memory, but I wouldn't be surprised if it could (actually I'm not
> sure how wide the memory bus is in athlons, but I would be surprised
> if it was narrower than 64 bits).
Well, to know this for sure, we'll have to find an assembler programmer
which will be able to say if it is possible to load one of the FPU
register directly from the cache in the same number of cycles the other
registers do.
If so, then the speed difference between the Athlon-XP and the Athlon-64
is partly (they can also have improved the FPU unit...) because the last
one can use ALL the registers to store 64 bits data, instead of the
lower number of FPU registers and then require the cache, which is slower.
Regards,
--
Laurent ARTAUD (lau### [at] freefr)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
