 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 May 1999 08:51:05 -0700, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
>Argh!
>One year ago I had checked it out on a system with only 32MB (pretty decent at the
>time). Just opening Word (not any docs, just Word) caused it to begin almost
>constant disk-thrashing. I had hoped they had corrected that. Guess not. Good to
>know what practical requirements are (remember Win95 saying '8MB'??? Yeah, right)
If I shut down all my optional services (apache, rc5des) and everything else,
the base system takes up somewhere around 75M, according to Task Manager.
Kernel memory alone is about half that. So it looks like 96M is a minimal
system for this version of NT. Disclaimers: I'm not running the official
beta 3, but I'm only about 15 builds behind. I'm also running some under-
development dlls and drivers that will push the total up a bit. But, as
you say, we're way off topic here.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Whoppa whoppa..
How glad I am I have Linux up and running, ain't I ?
"Jon A. Cruz" wrote:
> Win2k is just Windows NT 5. They had been hoping to be able to drop the 95 OS and
> force everyone up to NT, but it aint going to happen this round. Win9x is alive
> for a while. Of course, since Win2K is just NT 5 renamed, you can then take from
> that the info that it will require even more resources than NT 4, and thus you
> will not be wanting to run that either.
Yep yep. I sorta know ... It won't go too well wit ha lower end system either..
(I'm running at 200Mhz)
> (Not trying to OS bash, but getting frustrated having to program on Windows. Oy,
> my head)
Welcome to the gang.. I sorta miss the good 'ol' times when I had to use a
hackkk in assembler to get more than 16 Mb avaiable in pascal p-mode.. it was
fun, and I knew what was going on...
> Now, as far as size... You might just want to get good ol' Linux on your box (if
> by size of the OS you mean performance overhead in general). A couple of months
> ago I switched my home system from Win95 to dual boot to Linux and ended up
> staying in Linux most the time, especially for POVRay. This was on a 133 w/ 48 MB
> RAM.
Same here. I now have a few other os'es that I dualboot as well (BeOS really is
nice, but it doesn't really do anything.. *hehe*)
> Oh, and like you I had stayed away from NT (despite having a few legal copies for
> home) due to the weakness of my system. Once I put on Linux & Enlightenment it
> seemed so much more responsive than with 95 (OSR/2).
Well, I had a illegal NT4 copy here as a test.. Can't say it worked all that
great, esp. not with my hardware... it really complained and misbehaved a lot.
fdisk again and bye bye NT.
> (Oh, one other major reason for 9x staying around is becuase of WinNT's
> archetecture just not allowing decent performance for games on lower end systems.
> But then again, you all already knew that)
Yep. And here Linux is really ruling things.
> I almost forgot. To get things back on topic: Linux, of course, does SMP. And
> clustering. (smiling as I dangle these extra carrots). A "Cray-matching Linux
> cluster" anyone??? http://slashdot.org/articles/99/03/10/109215.shtml (drool,
> drool)
Yes... I seem to recall a lot of cluster networks using linux in the past year
or so. always interesting.. perhaps I'll go for it if I get my hands on some
more pc's.. or perhaps not ;)
--
//Spider -- [ spi### [at] bahnhof se ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
And the meek'll inherit what they damn well please
Get ahead, go figure, go ahead and pull the trigger
Everything under the gun
--"Sisters Of Mercy" -- "Under The Gun"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 1999 08:51:05 -0700, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
> >Argh!
> >One year ago I had checked it out on a system with only 32MB (pretty decent at the
> >time). Just opening Word (not any docs, just Word) caused it to begin almost
> >constant disk-thrashing. I had hoped they had corrected that. Guess not. Good to
> >know what practical requirements are (remember Win95 saying '8MB'??? Yeah, right)
>
> If I shut down all my optional services (apache, rc5des) and everything else,
> the base system takes up somewhere around 75M, according to Task Manager.
> Kernel memory alone is about half that. So it looks like 96M is a minimal
> system for this version of NT. Disclaimers: I'm not running the official
> beta 3, but I'm only about 15 builds behind. I'm also running some under-
> development dlls and drivers that will push the total up a bit. But, as
> you say, we're way off topic here.
One of the things I've heard about MS OS's is that they use whatever physical memory
you have. That is, if you have the memory, the OS will go ahead and utilize it untill
some apps need it, then get paged out. The real test seems to be what is the point
that it starts excessive swapping.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Mike
Subject: Re: SMP povray design? (...Starts with an 'L' )
Date: 27 May 1999 03:55:56
Message: <374CEAE4.BF465@aol.com>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wasn't there something in the news recently about Linux getting blobbered by NT on a
Quad Xeon machine?
Last I heard the rebels were regrouping on endor...
-Mike
> I almost forgot. To get things back on topic: Linux, of course, does SMP. And
> clustering. (smiling as I dangle these extra carrots). A "Cray-matching Linux
> cluster" anyone??? http://slashdot.org/articles/99/03/10/109215.shtml (drool,
> drool)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 May 1999 01:49:08 -0500, Mike wrote:
>Wasn't there something in the news recently about Linux getting blobbered by NT on a
>Quad Xeon machine?
>
>Last I heard the rebels were regrouping on endor...
You don't want to bring that up. Really.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OK, I promise - no more star wars threads. ;)
-Mike
Ron Parker wrote:
> >Last I heard the rebels were regrouping on endor...
>
> You don't want to bring that up. Really.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I farted around with my own SMP raytracer and, while RT is theoretically
easy to parallelize, in practice its much harder (of course, maybe I'm too
dense to figure out the right way). Avoiding malloc is very important to
rendering speed so you need pools of pre-alloc'd temporaries. Thread-safing
these pools is fairly costly. The best solution I found is to use MSVC's TLS
storage since it only uses an FS: instruction to access TLS data. This is
non-portable in the extreme so its out for POVRay.
The # of threads should be automatically determined by the # of processors
installed.
The best answer is for a thread to start rendering the next free line. The
problems start when antialiasing. Again I my be dense but in my aa code I
reuse the topmost subpixels in a line while subdividing to avoid
recalculating the same ray. This creates a linkage between lines which
requires thread-safing and/or buffering. Since the reason for SMP is a speed
advantage, this thread-safing gets in the way.
Mutithreaded initialization is another, less important area. Some time is
spent crunching heightfields and other objects so that tracing is faster.
Photon mapping would benefit the most here. This would be a low priority
item.
There are other issues like random number generation that can affect output
images between single and multithreaded implementations. This would be last
on my list of issues, though.
Mike
Jan Danielsson <Jan### [at] falunmailteliacom> wrote in message
news:wnaqnavryffbasnyhaznvygryvnpbz.fcawr70.pminews@news.povray.org...
> How should a multithreaded povray work?
>
> I guess the user specifies how many threads he/she wants, then what?
>
> Should the threads render lines, or should it devide to picture in to
> 'imageheight devided by threads' blocks and render them?
>
>
> /j
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
No, they use at least 16Mb, and if you have more it will use 50% of it.
(I'vetested to get this numbers, not guessing or secondhand info. Brutal "remove
a chipp, reboot, look and see" )
"Jon A. Cruz" wrote:
>
> Ron Parker wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 26 May 1999 08:51:05 -0700, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
> > >Argh!
> > >One year ago I had checked it out on a system with only 32MB (pretty decent at
the
> > >time). Just opening Word (not any docs, just Word) caused it to begin almost
> > >constant disk-thrashing. I had hoped they had corrected that. Guess not. Good to
> > >know what practical requirements are (remember Win95 saying '8MB'??? Yeah, right)
> >
> > If I shut down all my optional services (apache, rc5des) and everything else,
> > the base system takes up somewhere around 75M, according to Task Manager.
> > Kernel memory alone is about half that. So it looks like 96M is a minimal
> > system for this version of NT. Disclaimers: I'm not running the official
> > beta 3, but I'm only about 15 builds behind. I'm also running some under-
> > development dlls and drivers that will push the total up a bit. But, as
> > you say, we're way off topic here.
>
> One of the things I've heard about MS OS's is that they use whatever physical memory
> you have. That is, if you have the memory, the OS will go ahead and utilize it
untill
> some apps need it, then get paged out. The real test seems to be what is the point
> that it starts excessive swapping.
--
//Spider -- [ spi### [at] bahnhofse ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
And the meek'll inherit what they damn well please
Get ahead, go figure, go ahead and pull the trigger
Everything under the gun
--"Sisters Of Mercy" -- "Under The Gun"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Alessandro Coppo
Subject: Re: SMP povray design? (...Starts with an 'L' )
Date: 3 Jun 1999 04:13:36
Message: <37562b20.0@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ronald L. Parker wrote in message <374be437.44517686@news.povray.org>...
>On Tue, 25 May 1999 23:29:39 -0700, "Jon A. Cruz"
><jon### [at] geocitiescom> wrote:
>
>>Of course, since Win2K is just NT 5 renamed, you can then take from
>>that the info that it will require even more resources than NT 4, and thus
you
>>will not be wanting to run that either.
>
>I am running it. PII/333, 128M RAM. Barely acceptable performance.
>When I had 64M RAM in that machine, it was ridiculously slow and
>swapped all the time.
>
>There's a reason the people who pay to be in the "beta program" get a
>coupon good for a discount on more memory.
>
I had heard about its deadful minimal requirements (PII/300 + 128 MB) but I
was hoping
they were not true. So I will stick to Nt4+ Linux even on the PII/400 I am
in the process of buying.
By the way, do you know that I work almost well with Linux on a 486/DX4
(i.e. about a Pentium 75)
with 64 MB?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
