>> Both NTFS and VFS in theory support up to 8 exabytes on a partition.
> 
>   Actually wikipedia claims that NTFS supports partitions and files of
> 16 exabytes. That's a bit better than ReiserFS which supports "only"
> 8 terabytes.

Does this amount of storage actually exist somewhere? (E.g., what kind 
of space does somebody like Google or Amazon have?)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>   Actually wikipedia claims that NTFS supports partitions and files of
>> 16 exabytes. That's a bit better than ReiserFS which supports "only"
>> 8 terabytes.
> 
> Does this amount of storage actually exist somewhere? (E.g., what kind
> of space does somebody like Google or Amazon have?)
> 

Well, I have 2 terabytes at home and AFAIK that's not uncommon these
days. Thinking from there, I think Google or Amazon really does have at
least exabytes.

XFS also seems to support 8 exabytes, so I won't have a problem when
upscaling the array some day :p.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

>> Does this amount of storage actually exist somewhere? (E.g., what kind
>> of space does somebody like Google or Amazon have?)
> 
> Well, I have 2 terabytes at home and AFAIK that's not uncommon these
> days. Thinking from there, I think Google or Amazon really does have at
> least exabytes.

Yes, 1 or 2 TB HDs are on sale if you have the cash.

Note that before you get to exabytes you must first pass through 
petabytes - we're talking about *two* scale units, not just one.

Given that a single drive can hold 1 TB, it's not infeasible that 
somebody could amass 1,000 of those in a data-center somewhere. That 
would give you 1 PB. But 1 EB? Is that really possible yet?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> > You need to store the previous row in POV-Ray anyway, to know if you need to
> > antialias the current pixel :)

> I was under the impression that with AA enabled, *all* pixels are 
> supersampled. (But with adaptive supersampling, it shoots 4 rays before 
> deciding whether to supersample further...)

  Nope. What do you think the factor after the +a option means?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Given that a single drive can hold 1 TB, it's not infeasible that 
> somebody could amass 1,000 of those in a data-center somewhere. That 
> would give you 1 PB. But 1 EB? Is that really possible yet?

  But that would not be 1 petabyte as one partition. It would be 1 petabyte
of disk storage in total, among many smaller drives/partitions.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> I was under the impression that with AA enabled, *all* pixels are 
>> supersampled. (But with adaptive supersampling, it shoots 4 rays before 
>> deciding whether to supersample further...)
> 
>   Nope. What do you think the factor after the +a option means?

The threshold for deciding whether or not to subdivide further...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Given that a single drive can hold 1 TB, it's not infeasible that 
>> somebody could amass 1,000 of those in a data-center somewhere. That 
>> would give you 1 PB. But 1 EB? Is that really possible yet?
> 
>   But that would not be 1 petabyte as one partition. It would be 1 petabyte
> of disk storage in total, among many smaller drives/partitions.

...unless you can find a RAID controller that supports 1,000 array 
elements. o_O

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> I was under the impression that with AA enabled, *all* pixels are 
> >> supersampled. (But with adaptive supersampling, it shoots 4 rays before 
> >> deciding whether to supersample further...)
> > 
> >   Nope. What do you think the factor after the +a option means?

> The threshold for deciding whether or not to subdivide further...

  No, it's the threshold for starting antialiasing in the first place.
The comparison is against neighbour pixels.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:

>   If POV-Ray were to be compiled on a system without those limitations,
> it could probably achieve images of those sizes

even then, 2e9 x 2e9 wouldn't quite be reached (unless you'd have a >64 
bit system), some 1e9 x 1e9 would be the limit then.

(Again, speaking of POV-Ray 3.7. I don't think anyone would want to 
render such a big image without multiprocessor support ;-))

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>> I was under the impression that with AA enabled, *all* pixels are 
>>>> supersampled. (But with adaptive supersampling, it shoots 4 rays before 
>>>> deciding whether to supersample further...)
>>>   Nope. What do you think the factor after the +a option means?
> 
>> The threshold for deciding whether or not to subdivide further...
> 
>   No, it's the threshold for starting antialiasing in the first place.
> The comparison is against neighbour pixels.

OK, I didn't know that...

So yes, POV-Ray will need to buffer some of the neighboring pixels. :-}

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message