From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:12:02 -0400 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <088ac8dca18ec9ef9e83f70f167982eb@coraid.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1310400339.71319.YahooMailClassic@web30908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] GNU/Linux/Plan 9 disto Topicbox-Message-UUID: ff3f1658-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Mon Jul 11 13:58:27 EDT 2011, 23hiro@googlemail.com wrote: > > I'd certainly like something where my local processes migrate from > > my lower powered laptop including the Window manager migrate to a > > more powerful CPU when it becomes available and back again when my > > laptop becomes disconnected, > > > Here network latency is too high for such small tasks nowadays solved > by CPUs. If you have to wait for your CPU in the 21st century you're > doing it wrong. maybe in this particular case. here are two others where i think using more powerful cpus and/or networks might make a lot of sense. - suppose you have a really low powered device that is sometimes docked. - suppose you want to run fluid dynamics on your phone. if you want to make it run faster, you import some resources from a computing resource like ec2. it's true that network latency is a huge deal these days. and even a multicore machine looks like a bunch of fast cores connected to their l3 and each other by a slow network. but if you have a "large enough" packet of work, it can make sense to move it over to another cpu. i don't see why given an apropriate defn of "large enough" this couldn't work across different orders of magnitude. - erik