 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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.
One partition spread amongst many disks. :-) Actually, I think Windows
calls it a "volume", while a partition is part of a disk, a volume holds a
file system.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> ...not forgetting that there are scenes where the parse-time dwarfs the
> render-time. ;-)
But probably not on an 8000x3000 resolution picture. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:57:41 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Does this amount of storage actually exist somewhere? (E.g., what kind
>> of space does somebody like Google or Amazon have?)
>
> I'd guess maybe about a million drives with maybe 250G each, tops? I'd
> read somewhere they had a half-million computers, and they all use
> commodity 160G drives, so something like that. What does that turn out
> to? 250 peta bytes?
There was an article recently about someone at Google talking about
needing to manage 10 million machines....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> So far, I haven't seen any significant exceptions to the rule-of-thumb
> that render time is proportional to the number of pixels.
I'm sure once could artificially construct a scene which renders fast
at one resolution but extremely slow if you make the resolution even
slightly larger (by having some extremely-slow-to-render detail be so
small that no ray hits it at the lower resolution).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> There was an article recently about someone at Google talking about
> needing to manage 10 million machines....
Your numbers are probably closer to mine, assuming it wasn't a "we plan
systems in ways that we can manage 10 million, even tho at the moment we
have only 1." :-) My numbers are old and estimated from outside the company.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp schrieb:
> I'm sure once could artificially construct a scene which renders fast
> at one resolution but extremely slow if you make the resolution even
> slightly larger (by having some extremely-slow-to-render detail be so
> small that no ray hits it at the lower resolution).
On average, that will not change a thing. So you'd have to make the
detail not only particularly small, but also place it strategically.
But a scene coded so that the detail level is driven by the image_height
and image_width variables would do - which would even make sense in some
cases, especially for fractal geometry.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:25:56 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> There was an article recently about someone at Google talking about
>> needing to manage 10 million machines....
>
> Your numbers are probably closer to mine, assuming it wasn't a "we plan
> systems in ways that we can manage 10 million, even tho at the moment we
> have only 1." :-) My numbers are old and estimated from outside the
> company.
I think it might've actually been something along those lines, actually -
I'll have to see if I can find the reference again.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> But a scene coded so that the detail level is driven by the image_height
> and image_width variables would do - which would even make sense in some
> cases, especially for fractal geometry.
Doesn't the detail level change automatically with image_width /
image_height?
A texture should produce a higher level of detail automatically.
Or do you mean something like #NoOfTreesToPlant= image_width*image_height /
AnyReasonableNumber?
Can image_width be accessed in povray?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I've rendered stuff for Zazzle at silly resolutions. (It takes a
>> *long* time with a 32-bit CPU.)
>>
>> Let me go check... Yeah, that was 8,000 x 6,000 pixels.
>
> That`s truly insane! Some fractal, I guess?
Nah, just some marbles.
In fact:
http://www.zazzle.com/marbles_print-228982257548484115
Also:
http://www.zazzle.com/mist_print-228771069264566889
> how about render time? Days, weeks or months? :)
I think it took about a day. It's a pretty simple scene...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TC schrieb:
> Doesn't the detail level change automatically with image_width /
> image_height?
>
> A texture should produce a higher level of detail automatically.
Procedural textures, as used by POV-Ray, inherently provide unlimited
detail anyway, regardless of resolution.
> Or do you mean something like #NoOfTreesToPlant= image_width*image_height /
> AnyReasonableNumber?
Yes, something along those lines.
> Can image_width be accessed in povray?
Yes, of course. It is commonly used to make sure the camera parameters
match the output image aspect ratio, as in:
camera {
...
up y
right x*image_width/image_height
}
but it can be used for any other purpose you deem fit.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
