From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20091019163456.GF13857@nipl.net> References: <20091019163456.GF13857@nipl.net> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:30:51 -0700 Message-ID: <13426df10910191030p3801b72ahaaebc529422d6417@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: 8b9efa8e-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Sam Watkins wrote: > The "processors" (actually smaller processing units) would mostly be conf= igured > at load time, much like an FPGA. =A0Most units would execute a single sim= ple > operation repeatedly on streams of data, they would not read instructions= and > execute them sequentially like a normal CPU. > > The data would travel through the system step by step, it would mostly no= t need > to be stored in RAM. =A0If some RAM was needed, it would be small amounts= on > chip, at appropriate places in the pipeline. > > Some programs (not so much video encoding I think) do need a lot of RAM f= or > intermediate calculations, or IO for example to fetch stuff from a databa= se. > Such systems can also be designed as networks of simple processing units > connected by data streams / pipelines. I think we could connect them with hyperbarrier technology. Basically we would use the Jeffreys tube, and exploit Bell's theorem and quantum entanglement. Then we could blitz the snarf with the babble, tie it all together with a blotz, and we're done. ron