 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi:
I am running win2k with dual pIII 800Mhz.
My kernal is setup for dual processing (I have other applications that
utilize the dual PIIIs).
I am running a patch of megaPOV0.7, called POVMan 0.71.4.
It does not seem to be utilizing the dual CPUs.
Is this the nature of the application or is there a setting I am not using?
Best regards,
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jack wrote:
>
> Hi:
>
> I am running win2k with dual pIII 800Mhz.
>
> My kernal is setup for dual processing (I have other applications that
> utilize the dual PIIIs).
>
> I am running a patch of megaPOV0.7, called POVMan 0.71.4.
>
> It does not seem to be utilizing the dual CPUs.
>
> Is this the nature of the application or is there a setting I am not using?
>
See:
http://www.students.tut.fi/~warp/povVFAQ/languageVFAQ.html#multiprocessor
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jack <Jac### [at] brookscom> wrote:
: I am running a patch of megaPOV0.7, called POVMan 0.71.4.
: It does not seem to be utilizing the dual CPUs.
: Is this the nature of the application
Yes.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> http://www.students.tut.fi/~warp/povVFAQ/languageVFAQ.html#multiprocessor
I think this is something that needs to be addressed, would the pov team be
open to the posability of a 'commercial' version of pov that supported dual
cpu's, network rendering etc etc. (POV-Ray PRO perhaps -PRPp?)
a commercial system would free the team from cross platform issues. If
someone wants to set up a render farm, its the rending thats importamt, not
the underlying OS. And making the project commercial would generate some
revenues that can help fund the pov server, and pov coders
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 15:01:18 -0000, Rick [Kitty5] wrote:
>> http://www.students.tut.fi/~warp/povVFAQ/languageVFAQ.html#multiprocessor
>
> I think this is something that needs to be addressed, would the pov team be
> open to the posability of a 'commercial' version of pov that supported dual
> cpu's, network rendering etc etc. (POV-Ray PRO perhaps -PRPp?)
>
> a commercial system would free the team from cross platform issues. If
> someone wants to set up a render farm, its the rending thats importamt, not
> the underlying OS. And making the project commercial would generate some
> revenues that can help fund the pov server, and pov coders
The real issue isn't a cross-platform thing, it's a "the code isn't built
for that" thing. There are still too many objects and routines that keep
their state in a non-threadsafe manner. In any case, the same thing that
keeps us from changing the license to something more open also keeps us from
changing it to something more closed.
I'm not speaking for the Team, but I doubt the official position would be
much different.
--
#local R=<7084844682857967,0787982,826975826580>;#macro L(P)concat(#while(P)chr(
mod(P,100)),#local P=P/100;#end"")#end background{rgb 1}text{ttf L(R.x)L(R.y)0,0
translate<-.8,0,-1>}text{ttf L(R.x)L(R.z)0,0translate<-1.6,-.75,-1>}sphere{z/9e3
4/26/2001finish{reflection 1}}//ron.parker@povray.org My opinions, nobody else's
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
>
> [...]
> In any case, the same thing that
> keeps us from changing the license to something more open also keeps us from
> changing it to something more closed.
With one important difference: Most users will not have any objections
against a more open system, but this would be different for a more closed
one.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:47:10 +0100, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
>
> Ron Parker wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> In any case, the same thing that
>> keeps us from changing the license to something more open also keeps us from
>> changing it to something more closed.
>
> With one important difference: Most users will not have any objections
> against a more open system, but this would be different for a more closed
> one.
Okay, now this is really speaking for myself and not for the Team, and it's
also entirely tongue-in-cheek, but... Users? What are those? Why is their
opinion important?
No, really, the license can't change for all the reasons we've all heard
before: the code was contributed by people who we no longer have any contact
with under the terms of the old license. Changing the license in any
significant way might be contrary to their wishes, so it won't happen until
all of the code has been rewritten. How the users feel about it has very
little, if any, impact on the matter.
--
plane{-z,-3normal{crackle scale.2#local a=5;#while(a)warp{repeat x flip x}rotate
z*60#local a=a-1;#end translate-9*x}pigment{rgb 1}}light_source{-9red 1rotate 60
*z}light_source{-9rgb y rotate-z*60}light_source{9-z*18rgb z}text{ttf"arial.ttf"
"RP".01,0translate-<.6,.4,.02>pigment{bozo}}light_source{-z*3rgb-.2}//Ron Parker
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
>
> Okay, now this is really speaking for myself and not for the Team, and it's
> also entirely tongue-in-cheek, but... Users? What are those? Why is their
> opinion important?
>
> No, really, the license can't change for all the reasons we've all heard
> before: the code was contributed by people who we no longer have any contact
> with under the terms of the old license. Changing the license in any
> significant way might be contrary to their wishes, so it won't happen until
> all of the code has been rewritten. How the users feel about it has very
> little, if any, impact on the matter.
Well, i was just trying to point out the difference between changing the
licence in one direction and in the other. Since it won't be changed
anyway this is purely theoretical of course.
Of course i also had in mind future (4.0) licensing, but i doubt there is
much danger that there will be a change to the commercial side.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Will version 4 be re-written to the point that multithreading and parallel
processing would be feasible?
Jim
"Ron Parker" <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] fwicom...
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:47:10 +0100, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ron Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> In any case, the same thing that
> >> keeps us from changing the license to something more open also keeps us
from
> >> changing it to something more closed.
> >
> > With one important difference: Most users will not have any objections
> > against a more open system, but this would be different for a more
closed
> > one.
>
> Okay, now this is really speaking for myself and not for the Team, and
it's
> also entirely tongue-in-cheek, but... Users? What are those? Why is
their
> opinion important?
>
> No, really, the license can't change for all the reasons we've all heard
> before: the code was contributed by people who we no longer have any
contact
> with under the terms of the old license. Changing the license in any
> significant way might be contrary to their wishes, so it won't happen
until
> all of the code has been rewritten. How the users feel about it has very
> little, if any, impact on the matter.
>
> --
> plane{-z,-3normal{crackle scale.2#local a=5;#while(a)warp{repeat x flip
x}rotate
> z*60#local a=a-1;#end translate-9*x}pigment{rgb 1}}light_source{-9red
1rotate 60
> *z}light_source{-9rgb y rotate-z*60}light_source{9-z*18rgb
z}text{ttf"arial.ttf"
> "RP".01,0translate-<.6,.4,.02>pigment{bozo}}light_source{-z*3rgb-.2}//Ron
Parker
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Kress <kre### [at] kressworkscom> wrote:
: Will version 4 be re-written to the point that multithreading and parallel
: processing would be feasible?
I'm sure this will be in mind when designing pov4.
However, something has to be done to the radiosity before that. And perhaps
to other things as well.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
