From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20091016170316.GA3135@nipl.net> References: <20091015105328.GA18947@nipl.net> <0d5ebfeb839e02bce3fb8511d6a32ce5@hamnavoe.com> <20091016170316.GA3135@nipl.net> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:17:21 -0700 Message-ID: <13426df10910161117r238823aey38b5328d58824d5c@mail.gmail.com> From: ron minnich To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] Barrelfish Topicbox-Message-UUID: 888838a6-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Sam Watkins wrote: > So it would only be a problem supposing that a significant part of the pr= ogram > is unparallelizable. =A0I can think of many many tasks where "Amdahl's la= w" is > not going to be a problem at all, for a properly designed system. > > For example if I had a thousand processors I might raytrace complex scene= s for > an animated game at 100 fps, or do complex dsp over a 2 hour audio track = in one > millisecond. Yes, if you had that few processors, it might seem easy. It gets somewhat harder when you have, say, 128,000. Insignificant bits of code that were not even visible suddenly dominate the time. ron