 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/3/2009 12:03 PM, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Seriously, it's the only sane way to do something compute-bound AND have a
> GUI.
Not quite; you COULD implement scheduling / task switching in a single
thread. It would just be too much hassle when real threading is available.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/5/2009 8:21 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Still, realistically... if I just want something with silly amounts of
> CPU power, there are cheaper ways to do that than a server. I just like
> the way servers look cool, that's all. Way cooler than the "extreme
> modded" gamer PCs! :-P
Not to mention the Server uses space more economically than a room full
of PCs would. Not everyone has a spare floor in their building for the
500+ PCs needed for their server farm; a few racks and an air
conditioner, however, will fit in a much smaller space.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Not quite; you COULD implement scheduling / task switching in a single
> thread. It would just be too much hassle when real threading is
> available.
Most GUI toolkits either provide a function that blocks waiting for an
event, or take over control and call your callbacks (ie. event loop inside
the toolkit). How can you call anything else meanwhile?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Not to mention the Server uses space more economically than a room full
> of PCs would. Not everyone has a spare floor in their building for the
> 500+ PCs needed for their server farm; a few racks and an air
> conditioner, however, will fit in a much smaller space.
That's what amused me about the "buy 8 blade servers and get the blade
Wow, big deal. :-P
But then, today I thought... why would you bother with blades if you
weren't going to have *lots* of them in the first place? If you only
need 3 servers, why not just get ordinary rack-mount ones for a fraction
of the price?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> How can you call anything else meanwhile?
Timer pulses. Tell the event loop to call your process ten times a second.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Not quite; you COULD implement scheduling / task switching in a single
> thread. It would just be too much hassle when real threading is available.
Actually, if you get a good library for it, it can be beneficial in several
ways.
For example, Erlang does this (one thread per core) and supports hundreds of
thousands of concurrent threads (which would easily blow the stack and the
scheduler if you used OS threads).
Tcl uses this approach (unless you opt for threads, of course) with the
advantage that events that occur are serialized, so you can write code to
handle events coming in from sockets that update shared globals without
worrying about locks. Of course, if you have multiple cores, you're kind of
screwed performance-wise with this approach, which is why Tcl supports real
threads as well. Works great on a single CPU per process, tho.
The drawback is that without continuations as well (Tcl doesn't do lambdas
any better than C++ does), it's hard to coordinate stuff sometimes, because
you're always coming in at the top level. You have to turn all your loops
inside out, basically.
I was thinking of looking at the Python asyncore module (which is what does
this sort of thing for Python) and seeing if I could combine it with yield
and send() to make lightweight isolated threads. Would be very cool.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/8/2009 2:35 PM, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Most GUI toolkits either provide a function that blocks waiting for an
> event, or take over control and call your callbacks (ie. event loop inside
> the toolkit). How can you call anything else meanwhile?
Use a GUI toolkit designed with task scheduling on a single CPU w/o
hardware interrupts.
What you're asking is like asking, "How can you implement raytracing
with a graphics engine designed for scanline rendering?" The answer
being, of course, "Use a different engine" :)
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/8/2009 2:38 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> That's what amused me about the "buy 8 blade servers and get the blade
>
> Wow, big deal. :-P
Hey, that's 11% off - I see stores running specials like that all the
time :)
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
D***, your job sounds fun :)
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Mine is configured like this:
>
> - Dual redundant PSUs.
> - 2x quad-core Xeons at 2.0 GHz. (Yes, you read correctly. That's 8
> cores in total.)
> - 4x 1 GB RAM (i.e., 4 GB RAM on two channels.)
> - 6x SAS 72 GB HDs spinning at 10,000 RPM. (Configured as two RAID-1
> arrays with one hot spare and one cold spare.)
Muhuhuhuhuh!! Check out the attachment. LOOK AT ALL THOSE CORES!!! 8^D
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'cores.png' (19 KB)
Preview of image 'cores.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
