Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch > #111589 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-05-10 11:38 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-05-20 18:31 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 219 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.arch
Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-05-10 11:38 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-11 00:04 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-11 13:59 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> - 2025-05-11 07:47 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-11 23:46 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-12 00:30 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-12 01:19 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-12 02:03 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-12 22:34 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-05-12 08:05 +0200
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-05-12 08:41 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-12 22:39 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-12 17:14 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-12 22:35 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-05-12 21:50 -0400
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-13 03:03 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-05-12 23:25 -0400
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-13 08:39 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-05-13 12:55 -0400
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-05-13 07:40 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-13 08:12 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-13 08:33 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-14 00:18 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-13 17:49 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-18 01:35 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2025-05-18 14:10 -1000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-18 18:41 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-19 21:46 +0100
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-19 14:58 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-20 11:22 +0100
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2025-05-20 16:38 -1000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-20 20:49 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-19 00:18 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-19 01:13 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-19 23:33 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-20 00:36 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 00:16 -0500
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-05-20 10:49 -0400
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 12:42 -0500
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-20 11:35 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 00:29 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 20:08 -0500
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 03:46 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-20 20:58 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-05-21 12:25 -0400
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-05-21 12:47 -0400
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-05-21 17:19 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-05-21 15:06 -0400
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2025-05-21 22:19 -0400
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-22 01:51 -0500
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Torbjorn Lindgren <tl@none.invalid> - 2025-05-22 12:12 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-22 12:39 -0500
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-22 22:41 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-22 18:36 -0500
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-23 13:20 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-23 14:18 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2025-05-23 12:34 -0400
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 11:39 -0500
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-05-23 14:21 +0000
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-23 15:17 +0000
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-23 09:57 -0700
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-23 17:43 +0000
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 19:26 -0500
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-24 15:25 +0000
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-24 12:32 -0500
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-05-24 20:36 +0000
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-25 00:45 +0300
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-24 16:54 -0500
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-05-26 22:09 +0200
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-24 21:07 +0000
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-24 17:26 -0500
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-05-25 20:24 +0000
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-05-25 20:47 +0000
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-25 15:51 -0500
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-25 23:23 +0000
Re: recycling "Brian G. Lucas" <bagel99@gmail.com> - 2025-05-24 17:17 -0500
Re: recycling George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2025-05-25 02:24 -0400
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 10:53 -0500
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-23 17:03 +0000
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 12:34 -0500
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-24 00:38 -0500
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-24 16:57 +0000
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-24 14:24 -0500
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-05-30 09:20 +0000
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-24 20:38 +0000
Re: the power of junk, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-24 16:45 -0500
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-05-22 11:32 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-20 20:54 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 05:39 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-20 23:42 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 02:08 -0500
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-21 13:39 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 00:57 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-14 13:31 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-05-14 18:01 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-14 18:12 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-05-14 18:45 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-05-23 00:18 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-23 05:35 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 01:09 -0500
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-23 12:36 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 11:29 -0500
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-24 03:17 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-23 08:28 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-05-23 17:03 -0400
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-24 09:23 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-05-25 18:05 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-25 12:13 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-25 19:36 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-05-25 21:23 -0700
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-05-26 17:42 +0000
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-26 11:16 -0700
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-05-26 14:58 -0400
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-05-26 19:19 +0000
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-26 21:52 -0700
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-05-27 08:34 +0000
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-27 07:34 -0700
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-05-27 16:19 +0000
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-27 20:57 -0700
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-05-28 07:47 +0000
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-05-28 14:50 +0000
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-28 08:48 -0700
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-28 08:46 -0700
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-05-28 12:08 -0400
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-28 09:20 -0700
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-05-28 12:52 -0400
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-28 10:15 -0700
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-05-28 14:16 -0400
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-28 13:37 -0700
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-28 22:28 +0000
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-28 16:00 -0700
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-29 14:23 +0000
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-05-29 09:56 -0400
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-05-29 01:54 +0000
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-05-28 12:32 -0400
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-26 13:36 -0700
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-26 23:26 +0000
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-26 20:31 +0000
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-26 13:45 -0700
Re: fuzzy disks, Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-26 23:24 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-05-25 19:16 -0400
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-25 16:27 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-26 03:01 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-05-25 23:58 -0400
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2025-05-26 15:36 -1000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-05-26 20:14 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-26 07:13 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-26 07:31 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-05-26 19:20 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-26 14:12 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-30 01:42 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-29 20:25 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-30 05:53 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2025-05-31 12:53 -1000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-06-02 18:04 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-03 07:14 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-25 15:21 -0500
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-05-26 06:46 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-26 16:06 +0300
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-05-26 16:30 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 13:00 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 13:04 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-26 14:15 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 15:20 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-26 15:40 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 16:02 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 16:07 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-27 18:40 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-05-27 12:28 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-05-27 12:42 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-29 05:10 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-05-29 15:31 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-30 01:17 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-05-29 15:33 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-05-27 12:28 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-26 23:12 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-26 23:32 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-05-26 19:00 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-27 09:43 +0200
Drive Caches (Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, ...) Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-05-25 20:55 +0000
Re: Drive Caches (Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, ...) Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-05-26 00:07 -0400
Re: Drive Caches (Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, ...) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 00:59 -0500
Re: Drive Caches (Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-05-26 07:13 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-23 22:19 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-05-23 20:51 -0400
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-17 23:57 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? quadibloc <quadibloc@gmail.com> - 2025-05-19 21:33 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-20 00:43 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-20 13:53 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 13:19 -0500
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-05-20 16:06 -0400
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-20 22:11 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> - 2025-05-20 19:34 -0500
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 01:00 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 00:34 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2025-05-20 21:30 -0400
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 18:39 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 03:41 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2025-05-21 12:09 -0400
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-05-21 15:30 -0400
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-22 02:45 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2025-05-21 07:06 -1000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2025-05-21 17:32 -0400
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-05-21 07:05 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-22 02:48 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-05-21 08:23 -0400
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-21 14:08 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-22 02:49 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-22 17:34 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-22 17:42 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-05-23 01:54 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-22 22:42 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2025-05-22 23:47 -0400
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 00:32 +0000
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 18:29 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 18:04 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-05-22 16:49 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-05-22 18:04 -0700
Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 18:31 -0700
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-26 13:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1012h94$25u6o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111813 |
On 5/26/2025 6:06 AM, Michael S wrote: > On Mon, 26 May 2025 06:46:01 GMT > anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > >> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: >>> Discs probably are less competitive than >>> motherboards, >> >> I expect them to be just as competetive as motherboards, at least in >> the past. The fact that there are only 2-3 surviving HDD >> manufacturers indicates intense competition in the past, possible less >> today. >> >>> but I would expect adding 256 MB to lead to 1 >>> dollar or more increase of cost. >> >> What makes you think so. The DRAM chips on DDR4 DIMMs today hold >> 512MB (x8->4GB DIMM) up to 2GB (x16->32GB DIMM). There are 2GB DDR3 >> DIMMs (using 256MB chips), but they do not cost less than 4GB DDR3 >> DIMMs. Choosing a DRAM cache of 256MB rather than 512MB is unlikely >> to save even one cent. >> >> - anton > > You are projecting computer memory prices on very different market. > The memory used for HD cache is likely an individual memory chip or two > chips and likely several generation older than devices used in computer > DIMMs. I would expect something like x16 DDR3. Looking for price of > such devices on Mauser I see following figures: > 1 Gbit - $2.10 > 2 Gbit - $2.60 > 4 Gbit - $2.90 > So, even assuming that disk manufacturer pays 1.5x to 2x less than what > we see on Mauser, there exists measurable difference between 128, 256 > and 512 MB. The difference is smaller than suggested by Waldek but much > bigger than suggested by yourself. I wonder if a HDD can have several multi-core processors on them, where adding a new drive means you get not only more storage, but more CPU's in the system like a NUMA machine? For some reason, the AI's have a lot of "fun" when I talk to it about such things... ;^) lol.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-26 13:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1012hh3$25u6a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111823 |
On 5/26/2025 1:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 5/26/2025 6:06 AM, Michael S wrote: >> On Mon, 26 May 2025 06:46:01 GMT >> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: >> >>> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: >>>> Discs probably are less competitive than >>>> motherboards, >>> >>> I expect them to be just as competetive as motherboards, at least in >>> the past. The fact that there are only 2-3 surviving HDD >>> manufacturers indicates intense competition in the past, possible less >>> today. >>> >>>> but I would expect adding 256 MB to lead to 1 >>>> dollar or more increase of cost. >>> >>> What makes you think so. The DRAM chips on DDR4 DIMMs today hold >>> 512MB (x8->4GB DIMM) up to 2GB (x16->32GB DIMM). There are 2GB DDR3 >>> DIMMs (using 256MB chips), but they do not cost less than 4GB DDR3 >>> DIMMs. Choosing a DRAM cache of 256MB rather than 512MB is unlikely >>> to save even one cent. >>> >>> - anton >> >> You are projecting computer memory prices on very different market. >> The memory used for HD cache is likely an individual memory chip or two >> chips and likely several generation older than devices used in computer >> DIMMs. I would expect something like x16 DDR3. Looking for price of >> such devices on Mauser I see following figures: >> 1 Gbit - $2.10 >> 2 Gbit - $2.60 >> 4 Gbit - $2.90 >> So, even assuming that disk manufacturer pays 1.5x to 2x less than what >> we see on Mauser, there exists measurable difference between 128, 256 >> and 512 MB. The difference is smaller than suggested by Waldek but much >> bigger than suggested by yourself. > > I wonder if a HDD can have several multi-core processors on them, where > adding a new drive means you get not only more storage, but more CPU's > in the system like a NUMA machine? For some reason, the AI's have a lot > of "fun" when I talk to it about such things... ;^) lol. > Or even, have some ram on there, say a couple of gigs. So, adding a new drive gives you more storage, more memory, and more cpus?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-26 14:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1012lm8$23l9s$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111824 |
On 5/26/2025 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 5/26/2025 1:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 5/26/2025 6:06 AM, Michael S wrote: >>> On Mon, 26 May 2025 06:46:01 GMT >>> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: >>> >>>> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: >>>>> Discs probably are less competitive than >>>>> motherboards, >>>> >>>> I expect them to be just as competetive as motherboards, at least in >>>> the past. The fact that there are only 2-3 surviving HDD >>>> manufacturers indicates intense competition in the past, possible less >>>> today. >>>> >>>>> but I would expect adding 256 MB to lead to 1 >>>>> dollar or more increase of cost. >>>> >>>> What makes you think so. The DRAM chips on DDR4 DIMMs today hold >>>> 512MB (x8->4GB DIMM) up to 2GB (x16->32GB DIMM). There are 2GB DDR3 >>>> DIMMs (using 256MB chips), but they do not cost less than 4GB DDR3 >>>> DIMMs. Choosing a DRAM cache of 256MB rather than 512MB is unlikely >>>> to save even one cent. >>>> >>>> - anton >>> >>> You are projecting computer memory prices on very different market. >>> The memory used for HD cache is likely an individual memory chip or two >>> chips and likely several generation older than devices used in computer >>> DIMMs. I would expect something like x16 DDR3. Looking for price of >>> such devices on Mauser I see following figures: >>> 1 Gbit - $2.10 >>> 2 Gbit - $2.60 >>> 4 Gbit - $2.90 >>> So, even assuming that disk manufacturer pays 1.5x to 2x less than what >>> we see on Mauser, there exists measurable difference between 128, 256 >>> and 512 MB. The difference is smaller than suggested by Waldek but much >>> bigger than suggested by yourself. >> >> I wonder if a HDD can have several multi-core processors on them, >> where adding a new drive means you get not only more storage, but more >> CPU's in the system like a NUMA machine? For some reason, the AI's >> have a lot of "fun" when I talk to it about such things... ;^) lol. >> > > Or even, have some ram on there, say a couple of gigs. So, adding a new > drive gives you more storage, more memory, and more cpus? The CPU on the drive is not user programmable, and is almost certainly not the same ISA as the "main" CPU in the system. -- - Stephen Fuld (e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-26 15:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1012pf7$26ud3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111834 |
On 5/26/2025 2:15 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote: > On 5/26/2025 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 5/26/2025 1:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 5/26/2025 6:06 AM, Michael S wrote: >>>> On Mon, 26 May 2025 06:46:01 GMT >>>> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: >>>> >>>>> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: >>>>>> Discs probably are less competitive than >>>>>> motherboards, >>>>> >>>>> I expect them to be just as competetive as motherboards, at least in >>>>> the past. The fact that there are only 2-3 surviving HDD >>>>> manufacturers indicates intense competition in the past, possible less >>>>> today. >>>>> >>>>>> but I would expect adding 256 MB to lead to 1 >>>>>> dollar or more increase of cost. >>>>> >>>>> What makes you think so. The DRAM chips on DDR4 DIMMs today hold >>>>> 512MB (x8->4GB DIMM) up to 2GB (x16->32GB DIMM). There are 2GB DDR3 >>>>> DIMMs (using 256MB chips), but they do not cost less than 4GB DDR3 >>>>> DIMMs. Choosing a DRAM cache of 256MB rather than 512MB is unlikely >>>>> to save even one cent. >>>>> >>>>> - anton >>>> >>>> You are projecting computer memory prices on very different market. >>>> The memory used for HD cache is likely an individual memory chip or two >>>> chips and likely several generation older than devices used in computer >>>> DIMMs. I would expect something like x16 DDR3. Looking for price of >>>> such devices on Mauser I see following figures: >>>> 1 Gbit - $2.10 >>>> 2 Gbit - $2.60 >>>> 4 Gbit - $2.90 >>>> So, even assuming that disk manufacturer pays 1.5x to 2x less than what >>>> we see on Mauser, there exists measurable difference between 128, 256 >>>> and 512 MB. The difference is smaller than suggested by Waldek but much >>>> bigger than suggested by yourself. >>> >>> I wonder if a HDD can have several multi-core processors on them, >>> where adding a new drive means you get not only more storage, but >>> more CPU's in the system like a NUMA machine? For some reason, the >>> AI's have a lot of "fun" when I talk to it about such things... ;^) lol. >>> >> >> Or even, have some ram on there, say a couple of gigs. So, adding a >> new drive gives you more storage, more memory, and more cpus? > > The CPU on the drive is not user programmable, and is almost certainly > not the same ISA as the "main" CPU in the system. > > Can it be? Almost akin to the SPU on playstation. Except, each SPU ha a hard drive, many cpus, cores, threads, with dram and al that fun shit? Or too wacky? Or stupid in a sense? Well, how stupid on a scale from 0 to 1? ;^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-26 15:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1012qki$23l9t$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111837 |
On 5/26/2025 3:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 5/26/2025 2:15 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote: >> On 5/26/2025 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 5/26/2025 1:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> On 5/26/2025 6:06 AM, Michael S wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 26 May 2025 06:46:01 GMT >>>>> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: >>>>>>> Discs probably are less competitive than >>>>>>> motherboards, >>>>>> >>>>>> I expect them to be just as competetive as motherboards, at least in >>>>>> the past. The fact that there are only 2-3 surviving HDD >>>>>> manufacturers indicates intense competition in the past, possible >>>>>> less >>>>>> today. >>>>>> >>>>>>> but I would expect adding 256 MB to lead to 1 >>>>>>> dollar or more increase of cost. >>>>>> >>>>>> What makes you think so. The DRAM chips on DDR4 DIMMs today hold >>>>>> 512MB (x8->4GB DIMM) up to 2GB (x16->32GB DIMM). There are 2GB DDR3 >>>>>> DIMMs (using 256MB chips), but they do not cost less than 4GB DDR3 >>>>>> DIMMs. Choosing a DRAM cache of 256MB rather than 512MB is unlikely >>>>>> to save even one cent. >>>>>> >>>>>> - anton >>>>> >>>>> You are projecting computer memory prices on very different market. >>>>> The memory used for HD cache is likely an individual memory chip or >>>>> two >>>>> chips and likely several generation older than devices used in >>>>> computer >>>>> DIMMs. I would expect something like x16 DDR3. Looking for price of >>>>> such devices on Mauser I see following figures: >>>>> 1 Gbit - $2.10 >>>>> 2 Gbit - $2.60 >>>>> 4 Gbit - $2.90 >>>>> So, even assuming that disk manufacturer pays 1.5x to 2x less than >>>>> what >>>>> we see on Mauser, there exists measurable difference between 128, 256 >>>>> and 512 MB. The difference is smaller than suggested by Waldek but >>>>> much >>>>> bigger than suggested by yourself. >>>> >>>> I wonder if a HDD can have several multi-core processors on them, >>>> where adding a new drive means you get not only more storage, but >>>> more CPU's in the system like a NUMA machine? For some reason, the >>>> AI's have a lot of "fun" when I talk to it about such things... ;^) >>>> lol. >>>> >>> >>> Or even, have some ram on there, say a couple of gigs. So, adding a >>> new drive gives you more storage, more memory, and more cpus? >> >> The CPU on the drive is not user programmable, and is almost certainly >> not the same ISA as the "main" CPU in the system. >> >> > > Can it be? Which, user programmable or same ISA? No disk vendor would allow user programmability as it would void any warranty, possibly corrupt data, etc. As for same ISA, many years ago, one vendor used an 80186, but today, any current X86 would be overkill and too expensive for the job. Almost akin to the SPU on playstation. Except, each SPU ha a > hard drive, many cpus, cores, threads, with dram and al that fun shit? > Or too wacky? Or stupid in a sense? Well, how stupid on a scale from 0 > to 1? ;^) No comment. :-) -- - Stephen Fuld (e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-26 16:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1012ruo$26ud3$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111838 |
On 5/26/2025 3:40 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote: > On 5/26/2025 3:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 5/26/2025 2:15 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote: >>> On 5/26/2025 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> On 5/26/2025 1:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>> On 5/26/2025 6:06 AM, Michael S wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 26 May 2025 06:46:01 GMT >>>>>> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: >>>>>>>> Discs probably are less competitive than >>>>>>>> motherboards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I expect them to be just as competetive as motherboards, at least in >>>>>>> the past. The fact that there are only 2-3 surviving HDD >>>>>>> manufacturers indicates intense competition in the past, possible >>>>>>> less >>>>>>> today. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> but I would expect adding 256 MB to lead to 1 >>>>>>>> dollar or more increase of cost. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What makes you think so. The DRAM chips on DDR4 DIMMs today hold >>>>>>> 512MB (x8->4GB DIMM) up to 2GB (x16->32GB DIMM). There are 2GB DDR3 >>>>>>> DIMMs (using 256MB chips), but they do not cost less than 4GB DDR3 >>>>>>> DIMMs. Choosing a DRAM cache of 256MB rather than 512MB is unlikely >>>>>>> to save even one cent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - anton >>>>>> >>>>>> You are projecting computer memory prices on very different market. >>>>>> The memory used for HD cache is likely an individual memory chip >>>>>> or two >>>>>> chips and likely several generation older than devices used in >>>>>> computer >>>>>> DIMMs. I would expect something like x16 DDR3. Looking for price of >>>>>> such devices on Mauser I see following figures: >>>>>> 1 Gbit - $2.10 >>>>>> 2 Gbit - $2.60 >>>>>> 4 Gbit - $2.90 >>>>>> So, even assuming that disk manufacturer pays 1.5x to 2x less than >>>>>> what >>>>>> we see on Mauser, there exists measurable difference between 128, 256 >>>>>> and 512 MB. The difference is smaller than suggested by Waldek but >>>>>> much >>>>>> bigger than suggested by yourself. >>>>> >>>>> I wonder if a HDD can have several multi-core processors on them, >>>>> where adding a new drive means you get not only more storage, but >>>>> more CPU's in the system like a NUMA machine? For some reason, the >>>>> AI's have a lot of "fun" when I talk to it about such things... ;^) >>>>> lol. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Or even, have some ram on there, say a couple of gigs. So, adding a >>>> new drive gives you more storage, more memory, and more cpus? >>> >>> The CPU on the drive is not user programmable, and is almost >>> certainly not the same ISA as the "main" CPU in the system. >>> >>> >> >> Can it be? > > Which, user programmable or same ISA? That's a hard one. Perhaps a special ISA for the bridge, but then again, it might be the same ISA as multiple multi-core chips on the HDD. > No disk vendor would allow user > programmability as it would void any warranty, possibly corrupt data, > etc. As for same ISA, many years ago, one vendor used an 80186, but > today, any current X86 would be overkill and too expensive for the job. Ahh, well, then the same company that made the CPU's, GPU's, would be the same company that made these "special" HDD's? Pie in the sky, version 42... ;^) lol. Sorry. > > > Almost akin to the SPU on playstation. Except, each SPU ha a >> hard drive, many cpus, cores, threads, with dram and al that fun shit? >> Or too wacky? Or stupid in a sense? Well, how stupid on a scale from 0 >> to 1? ;^) > > No comment. :-) > > LOL!!! However, this had, iirc, PPC for motherboard and a special vector language for the SPU's?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-26 16:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1012s7d$26ud3$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111839 |
On 5/26/2025 4:02 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 5/26/2025 3:40 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote: >> On 5/26/2025 3:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 5/26/2025 2:15 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote: >>>> On 5/26/2025 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>> On 5/26/2025 1:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>> On 5/26/2025 6:06 AM, Michael S wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 26 May 2025 06:46:01 GMT >>>>>>> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: >>>>>>>>> Discs probably are less competitive than >>>>>>>>> motherboards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I expect them to be just as competetive as motherboards, at >>>>>>>> least in >>>>>>>> the past. The fact that there are only 2-3 surviving HDD >>>>>>>> manufacturers indicates intense competition in the past, >>>>>>>> possible less >>>>>>>> today. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> but I would expect adding 256 MB to lead to 1 >>>>>>>>> dollar or more increase of cost. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What makes you think so. The DRAM chips on DDR4 DIMMs today hold >>>>>>>> 512MB (x8->4GB DIMM) up to 2GB (x16->32GB DIMM). There are 2GB >>>>>>>> DDR3 >>>>>>>> DIMMs (using 256MB chips), but they do not cost less than 4GB DDR3 >>>>>>>> DIMMs. Choosing a DRAM cache of 256MB rather than 512MB is >>>>>>>> unlikely >>>>>>>> to save even one cent. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - anton >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are projecting computer memory prices on very different market. >>>>>>> The memory used for HD cache is likely an individual memory chip >>>>>>> or two >>>>>>> chips and likely several generation older than devices used in >>>>>>> computer >>>>>>> DIMMs. I would expect something like x16 DDR3. Looking for >>>>>>> price of >>>>>>> such devices on Mauser I see following figures: >>>>>>> 1 Gbit - $2.10 >>>>>>> 2 Gbit - $2.60 >>>>>>> 4 Gbit - $2.90 >>>>>>> So, even assuming that disk manufacturer pays 1.5x to 2x less >>>>>>> than what >>>>>>> we see on Mauser, there exists measurable difference between 128, >>>>>>> 256 >>>>>>> and 512 MB. The difference is smaller than suggested by Waldek >>>>>>> but much >>>>>>> bigger than suggested by yourself. >>>>>> >>>>>> I wonder if a HDD can have several multi-core processors on them, >>>>>> where adding a new drive means you get not only more storage, but >>>>>> more CPU's in the system like a NUMA machine? For some reason, the >>>>>> AI's have a lot of "fun" when I talk to it about such >>>>>> things... ;^) lol. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Or even, have some ram on there, say a couple of gigs. So, adding a >>>>> new drive gives you more storage, more memory, and more cpus? >>>> >>>> The CPU on the drive is not user programmable, and is almost >>>> certainly not the same ISA as the "main" CPU in the system. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Can it be? >> >> Which, user programmable or same ISA? > > That's a hard one. Perhaps a special ISA for the bridge, but then again, > it might be the same ISA as multiple multi-core chips on the HDD. > > >> No disk vendor would allow user programmability as it would void any >> warranty, possibly corrupt data, etc. As for same ISA, many years >> ago, one vendor used an 80186, but today, any current X86 would be >> overkill and too expensive for the job. > > Ahh, well, then the same company that made the CPU's, GPU's, would be > the same company that made these "special" HDD's? Pie in the sky, > version 42... ;^) lol. Sorry. > >> >> >> Almost akin to the SPU on playstation. Except, each SPU ha a >>> hard drive, many cpus, cores, threads, with dram and al that fun >>> shit? Or too wacky? Or stupid in a sense? Well, how stupid on a scale >>> from 0 to 1? ;^) >> >> No comment. :-) >> >> > > LOL!!! However, this had, iirc, PPC for motherboard and a special vector > language for the SPU's? > I think some games for the older Playstation did not even use the SPU's? They just ran on the PPC's? Too hard to program for? DMA for feeding the SPU's data?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-27 18:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10150vd$2orob$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111840 |
Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/26/2025 4:02 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 5/26/2025 3:40 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote: >>> On 5/26/2025 3:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> On 5/26/2025 2:15 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote: >>>>> On 5/26/2025 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>> On 5/26/2025 1:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 6:06 AM, Michael S wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 May 2025 06:46:01 GMT >>>>>>>> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: >>>>>>>>>> Discs probably are less competitive than >>>>>>>>>> motherboards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I expect them to be just as competetive as motherboards, at >>>>>>>>> least in >>>>>>>>> the past. The fact that there are only 2-3 surviving HDD >>>>>>>>> manufacturers indicates intense competition in the past, >>>>>>>>> possible less >>>>>>>>> today. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> but I would expect adding 256 MB to lead to 1 >>>>>>>>>> dollar or more increase of cost. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What makes you think so. The DRAM chips on DDR4 DIMMs today hold >>>>>>>>> 512MB (x8->4GB DIMM) up to 2GB (x16->32GB DIMM). There are 2GB >>>>>>>>> DDR3 >>>>>>>>> DIMMs (using 256MB chips), but they do not cost less than 4GB DDR3 >>>>>>>>> DIMMs. Choosing a DRAM cache of 256MB rather than 512MB is >>>>>>>>> unlikely >>>>>>>>> to save even one cent. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - anton >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are projecting computer memory prices on very different market. >>>>>>>> The memory used for HD cache is likely an individual memory chip >>>>>>>> or two >>>>>>>> chips and likely several generation older than devices used in >>>>>>>> computer >>>>>>>> DIMMs. I would expect something like x16 DDR3. Looking for >>>>>>>> price of >>>>>>>> such devices on Mauser I see following figures: >>>>>>>> 1 Gbit - $2.10 >>>>>>>> 2 Gbit - $2.60 >>>>>>>> 4 Gbit - $2.90 >>>>>>>> So, even assuming that disk manufacturer pays 1.5x to 2x less >>>>>>>> than what >>>>>>>> we see on Mauser, there exists measurable difference between 128, >>>>>>>> 256 >>>>>>>> and 512 MB. The difference is smaller than suggested by Waldek >>>>>>>> but much >>>>>>>> bigger than suggested by yourself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wonder if a HDD can have several multi-core processors on them, >>>>>>> where adding a new drive means you get not only more storage, but >>>>>>> more CPU's in the system like a NUMA machine? For some reason, the >>>>>>> AI's have a lot of "fun" when I talk to it about such >>>>>>> things... ;^) lol. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Or even, have some ram on there, say a couple of gigs. So, adding a >>>>>> new drive gives you more storage, more memory, and more cpus? >>>>> >>>>> The CPU on the drive is not user programmable, and is almost >>>>> certainly not the same ISA as the "main" CPU in the system. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Can it be? >>> >>> Which, user programmable or same ISA? >> >> That's a hard one. Perhaps a special ISA for the bridge, but then again, >> it might be the same ISA as multiple multi-core chips on the HDD. >> >> >>> No disk vendor would allow user programmability as it would void any >>> warranty, possibly corrupt data, etc. As for same ISA, many years >>> ago, one vendor used an 80186, but today, any current X86 would be >>> overkill and too expensive for the job. >> >> Ahh, well, then the same company that made the CPU's, GPU's, would be >> the same company that made these "special" HDD's? Pie in the sky, >> version 42... ;^) lol. Sorry. >> >>> >>> >>> Almost akin to the SPU on playstation. Except, each SPU ha a >>>> hard drive, many cpus, cores, threads, with dram and al that fun >>>> shit? Or too wacky? Or stupid in a sense? Well, how stupid on a scale >>>> from 0 to 1? ;^) >>> >>> No comment. :-) >>> >>> >> >> LOL!!! However, this had, iirc, PPC for motherboard and a special vector >> language for the SPU's? >> > > I think some games for the older Playstation did not even use the SPU's? > They just ran on the PPC's? Too hard to program for? DMA for feeding the > SPU's data? The SPU’s were vector engines used for 3D transforms, the GPU was just a a blit engine with no transform capabilities. The main CPU was too slow for to do all the transformations and ship a usable game that would pass Sony certification. You could do a lot more with the SPU vector engines if you rewrote your code, cloth physics, particles, etc, this is what the developers were talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-27 12:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10153p8$2pg77$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111860 |
On 5/27/2025 11:40 AM, Brett wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 5/26/2025 4:02 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 5/26/2025 3:40 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote: >>>> On 5/26/2025 3:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>> On 5/26/2025 2:15 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote: >>>>>> On 5/26/2025 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 1:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 6:06 AM, Michael S wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 May 2025 06:46:01 GMT >>>>>>>>> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: >>>>>>>>>>> Discs probably are less competitive than >>>>>>>>>>> motherboards, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I expect them to be just as competetive as motherboards, at >>>>>>>>>> least in >>>>>>>>>> the past. The fact that there are only 2-3 surviving HDD >>>>>>>>>> manufacturers indicates intense competition in the past, >>>>>>>>>> possible less >>>>>>>>>> today. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> but I would expect adding 256 MB to lead to 1 >>>>>>>>>>> dollar or more increase of cost. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What makes you think so. The DRAM chips on DDR4 DIMMs today hold >>>>>>>>>> 512MB (x8->4GB DIMM) up to 2GB (x16->32GB DIMM). There are 2GB >>>>>>>>>> DDR3 >>>>>>>>>> DIMMs (using 256MB chips), but they do not cost less than 4GB DDR3 >>>>>>>>>> DIMMs. Choosing a DRAM cache of 256MB rather than 512MB is >>>>>>>>>> unlikely >>>>>>>>>> to save even one cent. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - anton >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are projecting computer memory prices on very different market. >>>>>>>>> The memory used for HD cache is likely an individual memory chip >>>>>>>>> or two >>>>>>>>> chips and likely several generation older than devices used in >>>>>>>>> computer >>>>>>>>> DIMMs. I would expect something like x16 DDR3. Looking for >>>>>>>>> price of >>>>>>>>> such devices on Mauser I see following figures: >>>>>>>>> 1 Gbit - $2.10 >>>>>>>>> 2 Gbit - $2.60 >>>>>>>>> 4 Gbit - $2.90 >>>>>>>>> So, even assuming that disk manufacturer pays 1.5x to 2x less >>>>>>>>> than what >>>>>>>>> we see on Mauser, there exists measurable difference between 128, >>>>>>>>> 256 >>>>>>>>> and 512 MB. The difference is smaller than suggested by Waldek >>>>>>>>> but much >>>>>>>>> bigger than suggested by yourself. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I wonder if a HDD can have several multi-core processors on them, >>>>>>>> where adding a new drive means you get not only more storage, but >>>>>>>> more CPU's in the system like a NUMA machine? For some reason, the >>>>>>>> AI's have a lot of "fun" when I talk to it about such >>>>>>>> things... ;^) lol. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or even, have some ram on there, say a couple of gigs. So, adding a >>>>>>> new drive gives you more storage, more memory, and more cpus? >>>>>> >>>>>> The CPU on the drive is not user programmable, and is almost >>>>>> certainly not the same ISA as the "main" CPU in the system. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Can it be? >>>> >>>> Which, user programmable or same ISA? >>> >>> That's a hard one. Perhaps a special ISA for the bridge, but then again, >>> it might be the same ISA as multiple multi-core chips on the HDD. >>> >>> >>>> No disk vendor would allow user programmability as it would void any >>>> warranty, possibly corrupt data, etc. As for same ISA, many years >>>> ago, one vendor used an 80186, but today, any current X86 would be >>>> overkill and too expensive for the job. >>> >>> Ahh, well, then the same company that made the CPU's, GPU's, would be >>> the same company that made these "special" HDD's? Pie in the sky, >>> version 42... ;^) lol. Sorry. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Almost akin to the SPU on playstation. Except, each SPU ha a >>>>> hard drive, many cpus, cores, threads, with dram and al that fun >>>>> shit? Or too wacky? Or stupid in a sense? Well, how stupid on a scale >>>>> from 0 to 1? ;^) >>>> >>>> No comment. :-) >>>> >>>> >>> >>> LOL!!! However, this had, iirc, PPC for motherboard and a special vector >>> language for the SPU's? >>> >> >> I think some games for the older Playstation did not even use the SPU's? >> They just ran on the PPC's? Too hard to program for? DMA for feeding the >> SPU's data? > > > The SPU’s were vector engines used for 3D transforms, the GPU was just a a > blit engine with no transform capabilities. > > The main CPU was too slow for to do all the transformations and ship a > usable game that would pass Sony certification. > > You could do a lot more with the SPU vector engines if you rewrote your > code, cloth physics, particles, etc, this is what the developers were > talking about. > Right, but some "indy" "non-professional non AAA titles?" games could be played on the PPC? Now, some people grumbled about how it was hard to "program" for sending commands, data, to the SPU's, and get the data back. Iirc, send vertices, part of a mesh, think if SPU A worked on animating the left leg, some uniform variables (aka bones, instance index, ect), SPU B worked on animating the right leg, and so on. Well, without proper sync, the leg animations, say they were indexed as say, left_leg_move_0, left_leg_move_1 for SPU A, and right_leg_move_0, ..., until the all of them are complete and we can use it to actually render a damn frame. Think of animating bones where we need to send multiple mat4's to the shaders that are used to animate are completed., in the vertex shader, perhaps even in the fragment shader. Fwiw, here is an older try of mine using modern Opengl and my own engine, own shaders, all in C++, and GLSL: (Fractal Boom Box) https://youtu.be/n13GHyYEfLA I made the music as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-27 12:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10154jg$2pg77$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111861 |
On 5/27/2025 12:28 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 5/27/2025 11:40 AM, Brett wrote: >> Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 5/26/2025 4:02 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> On 5/26/2025 3:40 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote: >>>>> On 5/26/2025 3:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>> On 5/26/2025 2:15 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 1:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 6:06 AM, Michael S wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 May 2025 06:46:01 GMT >>>>>>>>>> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: >>>>>>>>>>>> Discs probably are less competitive than >>>>>>>>>>>> motherboards, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I expect them to be just as competetive as motherboards, at >>>>>>>>>>> least in >>>>>>>>>>> the past. The fact that there are only 2-3 surviving HDD >>>>>>>>>>> manufacturers indicates intense competition in the past, >>>>>>>>>>> possible less >>>>>>>>>>> today. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> but I would expect adding 256 MB to lead to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>> dollar or more increase of cost. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What makes you think so. The DRAM chips on DDR4 DIMMs today >>>>>>>>>>> hold >>>>>>>>>>> 512MB (x8->4GB DIMM) up to 2GB (x16->32GB DIMM). There are 2GB >>>>>>>>>>> DDR3 >>>>>>>>>>> DIMMs (using 256MB chips), but they do not cost less than 4GB >>>>>>>>>>> DDR3 >>>>>>>>>>> DIMMs. Choosing a DRAM cache of 256MB rather than 512MB is >>>>>>>>>>> unlikely >>>>>>>>>>> to save even one cent. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - anton >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are projecting computer memory prices on very different >>>>>>>>>> market. >>>>>>>>>> The memory used for HD cache is likely an individual memory chip >>>>>>>>>> or two >>>>>>>>>> chips and likely several generation older than devices used in >>>>>>>>>> computer >>>>>>>>>> DIMMs. I would expect something like x16 DDR3. Looking for >>>>>>>>>> price of >>>>>>>>>> such devices on Mauser I see following figures: >>>>>>>>>> 1 Gbit - $2.10 >>>>>>>>>> 2 Gbit - $2.60 >>>>>>>>>> 4 Gbit - $2.90 >>>>>>>>>> So, even assuming that disk manufacturer pays 1.5x to 2x less >>>>>>>>>> than what >>>>>>>>>> we see on Mauser, there exists measurable difference between 128, >>>>>>>>>> 256 >>>>>>>>>> and 512 MB. The difference is smaller than suggested by Waldek >>>>>>>>>> but much >>>>>>>>>> bigger than suggested by yourself. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I wonder if a HDD can have several multi-core processors on them, >>>>>>>>> where adding a new drive means you get not only more storage, but >>>>>>>>> more CPU's in the system like a NUMA machine? For some reason, the >>>>>>>>> AI's have a lot of "fun" when I talk to it about such >>>>>>>>> things... ;^) lol. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or even, have some ram on there, say a couple of gigs. So, adding a >>>>>>>> new drive gives you more storage, more memory, and more cpus? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The CPU on the drive is not user programmable, and is almost >>>>>>> certainly not the same ISA as the "main" CPU in the system. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Can it be? >>>>> >>>>> Which, user programmable or same ISA? >>>> >>>> That's a hard one. Perhaps a special ISA for the bridge, but then >>>> again, >>>> it might be the same ISA as multiple multi-core chips on the HDD. >>>> >>>> >>>>> No disk vendor would allow user programmability as it would void any >>>>> warranty, possibly corrupt data, etc. As for same ISA, many years >>>>> ago, one vendor used an 80186, but today, any current X86 would be >>>>> overkill and too expensive for the job. >>>> >>>> Ahh, well, then the same company that made the CPU's, GPU's, would be >>>> the same company that made these "special" HDD's? Pie in the sky, >>>> version 42... ;^) lol. Sorry. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Almost akin to the SPU on playstation. Except, each SPU ha a >>>>>> hard drive, many cpus, cores, threads, with dram and al that fun >>>>>> shit? Or too wacky? Or stupid in a sense? Well, how stupid on a scale >>>>>> from 0 to 1? ;^) >>>>> >>>>> No comment. :-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> LOL!!! However, this had, iirc, PPC for motherboard and a special >>>> vector >>>> language for the SPU's? >>>> >>> >>> I think some games for the older Playstation did not even use the SPU's? >>> They just ran on the PPC's? Too hard to program for? DMA for feeding the >>> SPU's data? >> >> >> The SPU’s were vector engines used for 3D transforms, the GPU was just >> a a >> blit engine with no transform capabilities. >> >> The main CPU was too slow for to do all the transformations and ship a >> usable game that would pass Sony certification. >> >> You could do a lot more with the SPU vector engines if you rewrote your >> code, cloth physics, particles, etc, this is what the developers were >> talking about. >> > > Right, but some "indy" "non-professional non AAA titles?" games could be > played on the PPC? Now, some people grumbled about how it was hard to > "program" for sending commands, data, to the SPU's, and get the data > back. Iirc, send vertices, part of a mesh, think if SPU A worked on > animating the left leg, some uniform variables (aka bones, instance > index, ect), SPU B worked on animating the right leg, and so on. Well, > without proper sync, the leg animations, say they were indexed as say, > left_leg_move_0, left_leg_move_1 for SPU A, and right_leg_move_0, ..., > until the all of them are complete and we can use it to actually render > a damn frame. Think of animating bones where we need to send multiple > mat4's to the shaders that are used to animate are completed., in the > vertex shader, perhaps even in the fragment shader. Fwiw, here is an > older try of mine using modern Opengl and my own engine, own shaders, > all in C++, and GLSL: > > (Fractal Boom Box) > https://youtu.be/n13GHyYEfLA > > I made the music as well. For some damn reason my music sounds a bit creepy when played at .25 speed on youtube... A bit spooky to me: https://i.ibb.co/Fk8N0DL4/ct-p0.png For some damn reason my music sounds creepy when played at .25 speed on youtube... A bit spooky to me: https://i.ibb.co/Fk8N0DL4/ct-p0.png
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-29 05:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1018q8t$3nbh5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111861 |
Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/27/2025 11:40 AM, Brett wrote: >> Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 5/26/2025 4:02 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> On 5/26/2025 3:40 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote: >>>>> On 5/26/2025 3:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>> On 5/26/2025 2:15 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 1:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 6:06 AM, Michael S wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 May 2025 06:46:01 GMT >>>>>>>>>> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: >>>>>>>>>>>> Discs probably are less competitive than >>>>>>>>>>>> motherboards, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I expect them to be just as competetive as motherboards, at >>>>>>>>>>> least in >>>>>>>>>>> the past. The fact that there are only 2-3 surviving HDD >>>>>>>>>>> manufacturers indicates intense competition in the past, >>>>>>>>>>> possible less >>>>>>>>>>> today. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> but I would expect adding 256 MB to lead to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>> dollar or more increase of cost. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What makes you think so. The DRAM chips on DDR4 DIMMs today hold >>>>>>>>>>> 512MB (x8->4GB DIMM) up to 2GB (x16->32GB DIMM). There are 2GB >>>>>>>>>>> DDR3 >>>>>>>>>>> DIMMs (using 256MB chips), but they do not cost less than 4GB DDR3 >>>>>>>>>>> DIMMs. Choosing a DRAM cache of 256MB rather than 512MB is >>>>>>>>>>> unlikely >>>>>>>>>>> to save even one cent. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - anton >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are projecting computer memory prices on very different market. >>>>>>>>>> The memory used for HD cache is likely an individual memory chip >>>>>>>>>> or two >>>>>>>>>> chips and likely several generation older than devices used in >>>>>>>>>> computer >>>>>>>>>> DIMMs. I would expect something like x16 DDR3. Looking for >>>>>>>>>> price of >>>>>>>>>> such devices on Mauser I see following figures: >>>>>>>>>> 1 Gbit - $2.10 >>>>>>>>>> 2 Gbit - $2.60 >>>>>>>>>> 4 Gbit - $2.90 >>>>>>>>>> So, even assuming that disk manufacturer pays 1.5x to 2x less >>>>>>>>>> than what >>>>>>>>>> we see on Mauser, there exists measurable difference between 128, >>>>>>>>>> 256 >>>>>>>>>> and 512 MB. The difference is smaller than suggested by Waldek >>>>>>>>>> but much >>>>>>>>>> bigger than suggested by yourself. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I wonder if a HDD can have several multi-core processors on them, >>>>>>>>> where adding a new drive means you get not only more storage, but >>>>>>>>> more CPU's in the system like a NUMA machine? For some reason, the >>>>>>>>> AI's have a lot of "fun" when I talk to it about such >>>>>>>>> things... ;^) lol. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or even, have some ram on there, say a couple of gigs. So, adding a >>>>>>>> new drive gives you more storage, more memory, and more cpus? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The CPU on the drive is not user programmable, and is almost >>>>>>> certainly not the same ISA as the "main" CPU in the system. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Can it be? >>>>> >>>>> Which, user programmable or same ISA? >>>> >>>> That's a hard one. Perhaps a special ISA for the bridge, but then again, >>>> it might be the same ISA as multiple multi-core chips on the HDD. >>>> >>>> >>>>> No disk vendor would allow user programmability as it would void any >>>>> warranty, possibly corrupt data, etc. As for same ISA, many years >>>>> ago, one vendor used an 80186, but today, any current X86 would be >>>>> overkill and too expensive for the job. >>>> >>>> Ahh, well, then the same company that made the CPU's, GPU's, would be >>>> the same company that made these "special" HDD's? Pie in the sky, >>>> version 42... ;^) lol. Sorry. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Almost akin to the SPU on playstation. Except, each SPU ha a >>>>>> hard drive, many cpus, cores, threads, with dram and al that fun >>>>>> shit? Or too wacky? Or stupid in a sense? Well, how stupid on a scale >>>>>> from 0 to 1? ;^) >>>>> >>>>> No comment. :-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> LOL!!! However, this had, iirc, PPC for motherboard and a special vector >>>> language for the SPU's? >>>> >>> >>> I think some games for the older Playstation did not even use the SPU's? >>> They just ran on the PPC's? Too hard to program for? DMA for feeding the >>> SPU's data? >> >> >> The SPU’s were vector engines used for 3D transforms, the GPU was just a a >> blit engine with no transform capabilities. >> >> The main CPU was too slow for to do all the transformations and ship a >> usable game that would pass Sony certification. >> >> You could do a lot more with the SPU vector engines if you rewrote your >> code, cloth physics, particles, etc, this is what the developers were >> talking about. >> > > Right, but some "indy" "non-professional non AAA titles?" The Sony console platforms are closed to Indy and non-AAA titles. Only an AI could make such a blunder. > games could be > played on the PPC? Now, some people grumbled about how it was hard to > "program" for sending commands, data, to the SPU's, and get the data > back. Iirc, send vertices, part of a mesh, think if SPU A worked on > animating the left leg, some uniform variables (aka bones, instance > index, ect), SPU B worked on animating the right leg, and so on. Well, > without proper sync, the leg animations, say they were indexed as say, > left_leg_move_0, left_leg_move_1 for SPU A, and right_leg_move_0, ..., > until the all of them are complete and we can use it to actually render > a damn frame. Think of animating bones where we need to send multiple > mat4's to the shaders that are used to animate are completed., in the > vertex shader, perhaps even in the fragment shader. Fwiw, here is an > older try of mine using modern Opengl and my own engine, own shaders, > all in C++, and GLSL: > > (Fractal Boom Box) > https://youtu.be/n13GHyYEfLA > > I made the music as well. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-29 15:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <101an7s$36s1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111880 |
On 5/28/2025 10:10 PM, Brett wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 5/27/2025 11:40 AM, Brett wrote: >>> Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 5/26/2025 4:02 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>> On 5/26/2025 3:40 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote: >>>>>> On 5/26/2025 3:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 2:15 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 1:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 6:06 AM, Michael S wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 May 2025 06:46:01 GMT >>>>>>>>>>> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Discs probably are less competitive than >>>>>>>>>>>>> motherboards, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I expect them to be just as competetive as motherboards, at >>>>>>>>>>>> least in >>>>>>>>>>>> the past. The fact that there are only 2-3 surviving HDD >>>>>>>>>>>> manufacturers indicates intense competition in the past, >>>>>>>>>>>> possible less >>>>>>>>>>>> today. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> but I would expect adding 256 MB to lead to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>> dollar or more increase of cost. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you think so. The DRAM chips on DDR4 DIMMs today hold >>>>>>>>>>>> 512MB (x8->4GB DIMM) up to 2GB (x16->32GB DIMM). There are 2GB >>>>>>>>>>>> DDR3 >>>>>>>>>>>> DIMMs (using 256MB chips), but they do not cost less than 4GB DDR3 >>>>>>>>>>>> DIMMs. Choosing a DRAM cache of 256MB rather than 512MB is >>>>>>>>>>>> unlikely >>>>>>>>>>>> to save even one cent. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - anton >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are projecting computer memory prices on very different market. >>>>>>>>>>> The memory used for HD cache is likely an individual memory chip >>>>>>>>>>> or two >>>>>>>>>>> chips and likely several generation older than devices used in >>>>>>>>>>> computer >>>>>>>>>>> DIMMs. I would expect something like x16 DDR3. Looking for >>>>>>>>>>> price of >>>>>>>>>>> such devices on Mauser I see following figures: >>>>>>>>>>> 1 Gbit - $2.10 >>>>>>>>>>> 2 Gbit - $2.60 >>>>>>>>>>> 4 Gbit - $2.90 >>>>>>>>>>> So, even assuming that disk manufacturer pays 1.5x to 2x less >>>>>>>>>>> than what >>>>>>>>>>> we see on Mauser, there exists measurable difference between 128, >>>>>>>>>>> 256 >>>>>>>>>>> and 512 MB. The difference is smaller than suggested by Waldek >>>>>>>>>>> but much >>>>>>>>>>> bigger than suggested by yourself. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I wonder if a HDD can have several multi-core processors on them, >>>>>>>>>> where adding a new drive means you get not only more storage, but >>>>>>>>>> more CPU's in the system like a NUMA machine? For some reason, the >>>>>>>>>> AI's have a lot of "fun" when I talk to it about such >>>>>>>>>> things... ;^) lol. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Or even, have some ram on there, say a couple of gigs. So, adding a >>>>>>>>> new drive gives you more storage, more memory, and more cpus? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The CPU on the drive is not user programmable, and is almost >>>>>>>> certainly not the same ISA as the "main" CPU in the system. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can it be? >>>>>> >>>>>> Which, user programmable or same ISA? >>>>> >>>>> That's a hard one. Perhaps a special ISA for the bridge, but then again, >>>>> it might be the same ISA as multiple multi-core chips on the HDD. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> No disk vendor would allow user programmability as it would void any >>>>>> warranty, possibly corrupt data, etc. As for same ISA, many years >>>>>> ago, one vendor used an 80186, but today, any current X86 would be >>>>>> overkill and too expensive for the job. >>>>> >>>>> Ahh, well, then the same company that made the CPU's, GPU's, would be >>>>> the same company that made these "special" HDD's? Pie in the sky, >>>>> version 42... ;^) lol. Sorry. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Almost akin to the SPU on playstation. Except, each SPU ha a >>>>>>> hard drive, many cpus, cores, threads, with dram and al that fun >>>>>>> shit? Or too wacky? Or stupid in a sense? Well, how stupid on a scale >>>>>>> from 0 to 1? ;^) >>>>>> >>>>>> No comment. :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> LOL!!! However, this had, iirc, PPC for motherboard and a special vector >>>>> language for the SPU's? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think some games for the older Playstation did not even use the SPU's? >>>> They just ran on the PPC's? Too hard to program for? DMA for feeding the >>>> SPU's data? >>> >>> >>> The SPU’s were vector engines used for 3D transforms, the GPU was just a a >>> blit engine with no transform capabilities. >>> >>> The main CPU was too slow for to do all the transformations and ship a >>> usable game that would pass Sony certification. >>> >>> You could do a lot more with the SPU vector engines if you rewrote your >>> code, cloth physics, particles, etc, this is what the developers were >>> talking about. >>> >> >> Right, but some "indy" "non-professional non AAA titles?" > > The Sony console platforms are closed to Indy and non-AAA titles. > Only an AI could make such a blunder. Are you sure that no titles did not make use of all the SPU's, some of them, any of them? > >> games could be >> played on the PPC? Now, some people grumbled about how it was hard to >> "program" for sending commands, data, to the SPU's, and get the data >> back. Iirc, send vertices, part of a mesh, think if SPU A worked on >> animating the left leg, some uniform variables (aka bones, instance >> index, ect), SPU B worked on animating the right leg, and so on. Well, >> without proper sync, the leg animations, say they were indexed as say, >> left_leg_move_0, left_leg_move_1 for SPU A, and right_leg_move_0, ..., >> until the all of them are complete and we can use it to actually render >> a damn frame. Think of animating bones where we need to send multiple >> mat4's to the shaders that are used to animate are completed., in the >> vertex shader, perhaps even in the fragment shader. Fwiw, here is an >> older try of mine using modern Opengl and my own engine, own shaders, >> all in C++, and GLSL: >> >> (Fractal Boom Box) >> https://youtu.be/n13GHyYEfLA >> >> I made the music as well. >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-30 01:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <101b101$50io$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111886 |
Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/28/2025 10:10 PM, Brett wrote: >> Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 5/27/2025 11:40 AM, Brett wrote: >>>> Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 5/26/2025 4:02 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>> On 5/26/2025 3:40 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 3:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 2:15 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 1:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 6:06 AM, Michael S wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 May 2025 06:46:01 GMT >>>>>>>>>>>> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Discs probably are less competitive than >>>>>>>>>>>>>> motherboards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I expect them to be just as competetive as motherboards, at >>>>>>>>>>>>> least in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the past. The fact that there are only 2-3 surviving HDD >>>>>>>>>>>>> manufacturers indicates intense competition in the past, >>>>>>>>>>>>> possible less >>>>>>>>>>>>> today. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I would expect adding 256 MB to lead to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dollar or more increase of cost. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you think so. The DRAM chips on DDR4 DIMMs today hold >>>>>>>>>>>>> 512MB (x8->4GB DIMM) up to 2GB (x16->32GB DIMM). There are 2GB >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDR3 >>>>>>>>>>>>> DIMMs (using 256MB chips), but they do not cost less than 4GB DDR3 >>>>>>>>>>>>> DIMMs. Choosing a DRAM cache of 256MB rather than 512MB is >>>>>>>>>>>>> unlikely >>>>>>>>>>>>> to save even one cent. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - anton >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are projecting computer memory prices on very different market. >>>>>>>>>>>> The memory used for HD cache is likely an individual memory chip >>>>>>>>>>>> or two >>>>>>>>>>>> chips and likely several generation older than devices used in >>>>>>>>>>>> computer >>>>>>>>>>>> DIMMs. I would expect something like x16 DDR3. Looking for >>>>>>>>>>>> price of >>>>>>>>>>>> such devices on Mauser I see following figures: >>>>>>>>>>>> 1 Gbit - $2.10 >>>>>>>>>>>> 2 Gbit - $2.60 >>>>>>>>>>>> 4 Gbit - $2.90 >>>>>>>>>>>> So, even assuming that disk manufacturer pays 1.5x to 2x less >>>>>>>>>>>> than what >>>>>>>>>>>> we see on Mauser, there exists measurable difference between 128, >>>>>>>>>>>> 256 >>>>>>>>>>>> and 512 MB. The difference is smaller than suggested by Waldek >>>>>>>>>>>> but much >>>>>>>>>>>> bigger than suggested by yourself. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I wonder if a HDD can have several multi-core processors on them, >>>>>>>>>>> where adding a new drive means you get not only more storage, but >>>>>>>>>>> more CPU's in the system like a NUMA machine? For some reason, the >>>>>>>>>>> AI's have a lot of "fun" when I talk to it about such >>>>>>>>>>> things... ;^) lol. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Or even, have some ram on there, say a couple of gigs. So, adding a >>>>>>>>>> new drive gives you more storage, more memory, and more cpus? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The CPU on the drive is not user programmable, and is almost >>>>>>>>> certainly not the same ISA as the "main" CPU in the system. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can it be? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which, user programmable or same ISA? >>>>>> >>>>>> That's a hard one. Perhaps a special ISA for the bridge, but then again, >>>>>> it might be the same ISA as multiple multi-core chips on the HDD. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> No disk vendor would allow user programmability as it would void any >>>>>>> warranty, possibly corrupt data, etc. As for same ISA, many years >>>>>>> ago, one vendor used an 80186, but today, any current X86 would be >>>>>>> overkill and too expensive for the job. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ahh, well, then the same company that made the CPU's, GPU's, would be >>>>>> the same company that made these "special" HDD's? Pie in the sky, >>>>>> version 42... ;^) lol. Sorry. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Almost akin to the SPU on playstation. Except, each SPU ha a >>>>>>>> hard drive, many cpus, cores, threads, with dram and al that fun >>>>>>>> shit? Or too wacky? Or stupid in a sense? Well, how stupid on a scale >>>>>>>> from 0 to 1? ;^) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No comment. :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> LOL!!! However, this had, iirc, PPC for motherboard and a special vector >>>>>> language for the SPU's? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think some games for the older Playstation did not even use the SPU's? >>>>> They just ran on the PPC's? Too hard to program for? DMA for feeding the >>>>> SPU's data? >>>> >>>> >>>> The SPU’s were vector engines used for 3D transforms, the GPU was just a a >>>> blit engine with no transform capabilities. >>>> >>>> The main CPU was too slow for to do all the transformations and ship a >>>> usable game that would pass Sony certification. >>>> >>>> You could do a lot more with the SPU vector engines if you rewrote your >>>> code, cloth physics, particles, etc, this is what the developers were >>>> talking about. >>>> >>> >>> Right, but some "indy" "non-professional non AAA titles?" >> >> The Sony console platforms are closed to Indy and non-AAA titles. >> Only an AI could make such a blunder. > > Are you sure that no titles did not make use of all the SPU's, some of > them, any of them? It was possible for a 2D side scroller to not use the SPU. It was not possible to ship a 3D game without using the SPU’s. The whole point of the PlayStation 2 was 3D games. 2D quickly became obsolete for AAA games, few were authorized by Sony. Being an AI you should be able to plot the transition by reading game descriptions. >>> games could be >>> played on the PPC? Now, some people grumbled about how it was hard to >>> "program" for sending commands, data, to the SPU's, and get the data >>> back. Iirc, send vertices, part of a mesh, think if SPU A worked on >>> animating the left leg, some uniform variables (aka bones, instance >>> index, ect), SPU B worked on animating the right leg, and so on. Well, >>> without proper sync, the leg animations, say they were indexed as say, >>> left_leg_move_0, left_leg_move_1 for SPU A, and right_leg_move_0, ..., >>> until the all of them are complete and we can use it to actually render >>> a damn frame. Think of animating bones where we need to send multiple >>> mat4's to the shaders that are used to animate are completed., in the >>> vertex shader, perhaps even in the fragment shader. Fwiw, here is an >>> older try of mine using modern Opengl and my own engine, own shaders, >>> all in C++, and GLSL: >>> >>> (Fractal Boom Box) >>> https://youtu.be/n13GHyYEfLA >>> >>> I made the music as
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-29 15:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <101anat$36s1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111880 |
On 5/28/2025 10:10 PM, Brett wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 5/27/2025 11:40 AM, Brett wrote: >>> Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 5/26/2025 4:02 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>> On 5/26/2025 3:40 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote: >>>>>> On 5/26/2025 3:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 2:15 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 1:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 6:06 AM, Michael S wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 May 2025 06:46:01 GMT >>>>>>>>>>> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Discs probably are less competitive than >>>>>>>>>>>>> motherboards, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I expect them to be just as competetive as motherboards, at >>>>>>>>>>>> least in >>>>>>>>>>>> the past. The fact that there are only 2-3 surviving HDD >>>>>>>>>>>> manufacturers indicates intense competition in the past, >>>>>>>>>>>> possible less >>>>>>>>>>>> today. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> but I would expect adding 256 MB to lead to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>> dollar or more increase of cost. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you think so. The DRAM chips on DDR4 DIMMs today hold >>>>>>>>>>>> 512MB (x8->4GB DIMM) up to 2GB (x16->32GB DIMM). There are 2GB >>>>>>>>>>>> DDR3 >>>>>>>>>>>> DIMMs (using 256MB chips), but they do not cost less than 4GB DDR3 >>>>>>>>>>>> DIMMs. Choosing a DRAM cache of 256MB rather than 512MB is >>>>>>>>>>>> unlikely >>>>>>>>>>>> to save even one cent. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - anton >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are projecting computer memory prices on very different market. >>>>>>>>>>> The memory used for HD cache is likely an individual memory chip >>>>>>>>>>> or two >>>>>>>>>>> chips and likely several generation older than devices used in >>>>>>>>>>> computer >>>>>>>>>>> DIMMs. I would expect something like x16 DDR3. Looking for >>>>>>>>>>> price of >>>>>>>>>>> such devices on Mauser I see following figures: >>>>>>>>>>> 1 Gbit - $2.10 >>>>>>>>>>> 2 Gbit - $2.60 >>>>>>>>>>> 4 Gbit - $2.90 >>>>>>>>>>> So, even assuming that disk manufacturer pays 1.5x to 2x less >>>>>>>>>>> than what >>>>>>>>>>> we see on Mauser, there exists measurable difference between 128, >>>>>>>>>>> 256 >>>>>>>>>>> and 512 MB. The difference is smaller than suggested by Waldek >>>>>>>>>>> but much >>>>>>>>>>> bigger than suggested by yourself. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I wonder if a HDD can have several multi-core processors on them, >>>>>>>>>> where adding a new drive means you get not only more storage, but >>>>>>>>>> more CPU's in the system like a NUMA machine? For some reason, the >>>>>>>>>> AI's have a lot of "fun" when I talk to it about such >>>>>>>>>> things... ;^) lol. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Or even, have some ram on there, say a couple of gigs. So, adding a >>>>>>>>> new drive gives you more storage, more memory, and more cpus? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The CPU on the drive is not user programmable, and is almost >>>>>>>> certainly not the same ISA as the "main" CPU in the system. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can it be? >>>>>> >>>>>> Which, user programmable or same ISA? >>>>> >>>>> That's a hard one. Perhaps a special ISA for the bridge, but then again, >>>>> it might be the same ISA as multiple multi-core chips on the HDD. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> No disk vendor would allow user programmability as it would void any >>>>>> warranty, possibly corrupt data, etc. As for same ISA, many years >>>>>> ago, one vendor used an 80186, but today, any current X86 would be >>>>>> overkill and too expensive for the job. >>>>> >>>>> Ahh, well, then the same company that made the CPU's, GPU's, would be >>>>> the same company that made these "special" HDD's? Pie in the sky, >>>>> version 42... ;^) lol. Sorry. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Almost akin to the SPU on playstation. Except, each SPU ha a >>>>>>> hard drive, many cpus, cores, threads, with dram and al that fun >>>>>>> shit? Or too wacky? Or stupid in a sense? Well, how stupid on a scale >>>>>>> from 0 to 1? ;^) >>>>>> >>>>>> No comment. :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> LOL!!! However, this had, iirc, PPC for motherboard and a special vector >>>>> language for the SPU's? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think some games for the older Playstation did not even use the SPU's? >>>> They just ran on the PPC's? Too hard to program for? DMA for feeding the >>>> SPU's data? >>> >>> >>> The SPU’s were vector engines used for 3D transforms, the GPU was just a a >>> blit engine with no transform capabilities. >>> >>> The main CPU was too slow for to do all the transformations and ship a >>> usable game that would pass Sony certification. >>> >>> You could do a lot more with the SPU vector engines if you rewrote your >>> code, cloth physics, particles, etc, this is what the developers were >>> talking about. >>> >> >> Right, but some "indy" "non-professional non AAA titles?" > > The Sony console platforms are closed to Indy and non-AAA titles. > Only an AI could make such a blunder. [...] Was there a strict requirement for maximum SPU utilization for a game to pass verification?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-27 12:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10153pj$2pg77$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111860 |
On 5/27/2025 11:40 AM, Brett wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 5/26/2025 4:02 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 5/26/2025 3:40 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote: >>>> On 5/26/2025 3:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>> On 5/26/2025 2:15 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote: >>>>>> On 5/26/2025 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 1:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 6:06 AM, Michael S wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 May 2025 06:46:01 GMT >>>>>>>>> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: >>>>>>>>>>> Discs probably are less competitive than >>>>>>>>>>> motherboards, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I expect them to be just as competetive as motherboards, at >>>>>>>>>> least in >>>>>>>>>> the past. The fact that there are only 2-3 surviving HDD >>>>>>>>>> manufacturers indicates intense competition in the past, >>>>>>>>>> possible less >>>>>>>>>> today. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> but I would expect adding 256 MB to lead to 1 >>>>>>>>>>> dollar or more increase of cost. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What makes you think so. The DRAM chips on DDR4 DIMMs today hold >>>>>>>>>> 512MB (x8->4GB DIMM) up to 2GB (x16->32GB DIMM). There are 2GB >>>>>>>>>> DDR3 >>>>>>>>>> DIMMs (using 256MB chips), but they do not cost less than 4GB DDR3 >>>>>>>>>> DIMMs. Choosing a DRAM cache of 256MB rather than 512MB is >>>>>>>>>> unlikely >>>>>>>>>> to save even one cent. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - anton >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are projecting computer memory prices on very different market. >>>>>>>>> The memory used for HD cache is likely an individual memory chip >>>>>>>>> or two >>>>>>>>> chips and likely several generation older than devices used in >>>>>>>>> computer >>>>>>>>> DIMMs. I would expect something like x16 DDR3. Looking for >>>>>>>>> price of >>>>>>>>> such devices on Mauser I see following figures: >>>>>>>>> 1 Gbit - $2.10 >>>>>>>>> 2 Gbit - $2.60 >>>>>>>>> 4 Gbit - $2.90 >>>>>>>>> So, even assuming that disk manufacturer pays 1.5x to 2x less >>>>>>>>> than what >>>>>>>>> we see on Mauser, there exists measurable difference between 128, >>>>>>>>> 256 >>>>>>>>> and 512 MB. The difference is smaller than suggested by Waldek >>>>>>>>> but much >>>>>>>>> bigger than suggested by yourself. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I wonder if a HDD can have several multi-core processors on them, >>>>>>>> where adding a new drive means you get not only more storage, but >>>>>>>> more CPU's in the system like a NUMA machine? For some reason, the >>>>>>>> AI's have a lot of "fun" when I talk to it about such >>>>>>>> things... ;^) lol. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or even, have some ram on there, say a couple of gigs. So, adding a >>>>>>> new drive gives you more storage, more memory, and more cpus? >>>>>> >>>>>> The CPU on the drive is not user programmable, and is almost >>>>>> certainly not the same ISA as the "main" CPU in the system. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Can it be? >>>> >>>> Which, user programmable or same ISA? >>> >>> That's a hard one. Perhaps a special ISA for the bridge, but then again, >>> it might be the same ISA as multiple multi-core chips on the HDD. >>> >>> >>>> No disk vendor would allow user programmability as it would void any >>>> warranty, possibly corrupt data, etc. As for same ISA, many years >>>> ago, one vendor used an 80186, but today, any current X86 would be >>>> overkill and too expensive for the job. >>> >>> Ahh, well, then the same company that made the CPU's, GPU's, would be >>> the same company that made these "special" HDD's? Pie in the sky, >>> version 42... ;^) lol. Sorry. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Almost akin to the SPU on playstation. Except, each SPU ha a >>>>> hard drive, many cpus, cores, threads, with dram and al that fun >>>>> shit? Or too wacky? Or stupid in a sense? Well, how stupid on a scale >>>>> from 0 to 1? ;^) >>>> >>>> No comment. :-) >>>> >>>> >>> >>> LOL!!! However, this had, iirc, PPC for motherboard and a special vector >>> language for the SPU's? >>> >> >> I think some games for the older Playstation did not even use the SPU's? >> They just ran on the PPC's? Too hard to program for? DMA for feeding the >> SPU's data? > > > The SPU’s were vector engines used for 3D transforms, the GPU was just a a > blit engine with no transform capabilities. > > The main CPU was too slow for to do all the transformations and ship a > usable game that would pass Sony certification. > > You could do a lot more with the SPU vector engines if you rewrote your > code, cloth physics, particles, etc, this is what the developers were > talking about. > Iirc, I could craft a single DMA transfer with specially structed data, say the offset 0 is a header, offset 1, would be my mesh, or vertices, or even a structure that describes a vertex, but has more data, like per vertex color, indices, and uniforms such as a buffer of instance veriables, and/or bone mat4's, many of them in the left leg. Perhaps, think about SPU A handingle from the knee down to the ankle. The foot is handled by SPU B. ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-26 23:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <88f5924602f7dafde33910a93c93451e@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #111834 |
On Mon, 26 May 2025 21:15:51 +0000, Stephen Fuld wrote: > On 5/26/2025 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 5/26/2025 1:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 5/26/2025 6:06 AM, Michael S wrote: >>>> On Mon, 26 May 2025 06:46:01 GMT >>>> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: >>>> >>>>> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: >>>>>> Discs probably are less competitive than >>>>>> motherboards, >>>>> >>>>> I expect them to be just as competetive as motherboards, at least in >>>>> the past. The fact that there are only 2-3 surviving HDD >>>>> manufacturers indicates intense competition in the past, possible less >>>>> today. >>>>> >>>>>> but I would expect adding 256 MB to lead to 1 >>>>>> dollar or more increase of cost. >>>>> >>>>> What makes you think so. The DRAM chips on DDR4 DIMMs today hold >>>>> 512MB (x8->4GB DIMM) up to 2GB (x16->32GB DIMM). There are 2GB DDR3 >>>>> DIMMs (using 256MB chips), but they do not cost less than 4GB DDR3 >>>>> DIMMs. Choosing a DRAM cache of 256MB rather than 512MB is unlikely >>>>> to save even one cent. >>>>> >>>>> - anton >>>> >>>> You are projecting computer memory prices on very different market. >>>> The memory used for HD cache is likely an individual memory chip or two >>>> chips and likely several generation older than devices used in computer >>>> DIMMs. I would expect something like x16 DDR3. Looking for price of >>>> such devices on Mauser I see following figures: >>>> 1 Gbit - $2.10 >>>> 2 Gbit - $2.60 >>>> 4 Gbit - $2.90 >>>> So, even assuming that disk manufacturer pays 1.5x to 2x less than what >>>> we see on Mauser, there exists measurable difference between 128, 256 >>>> and 512 MB. The difference is smaller than suggested by Waldek but much >>>> bigger than suggested by yourself. >>> >>> I wonder if a HDD can have several multi-core processors on them, >>> where adding a new drive means you get not only more storage, but more >>> CPU's in the system like a NUMA machine? For some reason, the AI's >>> have a lot of "fun" when I talk to it about such things... ;^) lol. >>> >> >> Or even, have some ram on there, say a couple of gigs. So, adding a new >> drive gives you more storage, more memory, and more cpus? > > The CPU on the drive is not user programmable, By a user of "reasonable" means. A CIA-like or NSA-like user probably HAS access to the necessary tools to reprogram the drive. > and is almost certainly > not the same ISA as the "main" CPU in the system. Why would it be. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-26 23:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rS6ZP.39135$wdi3.30825@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #111834 |
Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> writes: >On 5/26/2025 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> have a lot of "fun" when I talk to it about such things... ;^) lol. >>> >> >> Or even, have some ram on there, say a couple of gigs. So, adding a new >> drive gives you more storage, more memory, and more cpus? > >The CPU on the drive is not user programmable, and is almost certainly >not the same ISA as the "main" CPU in the system. I think you might be surprised by the computing power of the SoC on a modern enterprise grade hard disk drive, including both R and M class ARM cores. SSDs generally have more powerful cores than HDDs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-26 19:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10136cp$23l9t$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111844 |
On 5/26/2025 4:32 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> writes: >> On 5/26/2025 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > >>>> have a lot of "fun" when I talk to it about such things... ;^) lol. >>>> >>> >>> Or even, have some ram on there, say a couple of gigs. So, adding a new >>> drive gives you more storage, more memory, and more cpus? >> >> The CPU on the drive is not user programmable, and is almost certainly >> not the same ISA as the "main" CPU in the system. > > I think you might be surprised by the computing power of the > SoC on a modern enterprise grade hard disk drive, including both R > and M class ARM cores. Could be. As i have said repeatedly, my information is old. -- - Stephen Fuld (e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-27 09:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1013qf4$2gtno$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111844 |
On 27/05/2025 01:32, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> writes: >> On 5/26/2025 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > >>>> have a lot of "fun" when I talk to it about such things... ;^) lol. >>>> >>> >>> Or even, have some ram on there, say a couple of gigs. So, adding a new >>> drive gives you more storage, more memory, and more cpus? >> >> The CPU on the drive is not user programmable, and is almost certainly >> not the same ISA as the "main" CPU in the system. > > I think you might be surprised by the computing power of the > SoC on a modern enterprise grade hard disk drive, including both R > and M class ARM cores. SSDs generally have more powerful > cores than HDDs. I believe WD is a big user of RISC-V cores. Some of their cores are open sourced, others available for license - their latest version is 64-bit and 1.8 GHz. (Previous versions were 32-bit, but I don't know the speed.) So yes, these are pretty solid processors.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-25 20:55 +0000 |
| Subject | Drive Caches (Re: Is Parallel Programming Hard, ...) |
| Message-ID | <slrn10370uf.2e9bs.lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> |
| In reply to | #111768 |
On 2025-05-23, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: > I don't understand what you're getting at, here. > I think Waldek's argument is that 256MB corresponds approximately > to the amount of data stored in 80-150 tracks, and seek time doesn't > change that fact. > > IIUC, for SATA drives, NCQ is still limited to 32 in-flight commands, so > unless the drive is allowed to do write-back caching it seems the amount > of space used for write-buffering is likely small (compared to 256MB). > [ Unless it is common for individual write commands to cover multi-MB > chunks of data? ] As I see it, with variable track length geometries, the OS file system cannot make reasonable assumptions about track boundaries, so it cannot maintain track/cylinder caches, but the drive processor can. > ... > but HDDs are pretty damn expensive beasts nowadays (because prices have > not gone down for the last 10 years or so), so I guess that makes > the relative cost of 512MB of DRAM "negligible"? Actually, HDDs are still on a steep downward price curve. The amount of HDD space you get for USD 100 keeps going up, up, up. Look at portable backup drives.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch
csiph-web