Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[YAMANASHI Takeshi]

> may be, in a way, recent viruses are good examples? :-)

yeah.  And those chickens are the sources and
routes of infection.  WHO should say something
about it along with the flu.
-

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Caerwyn B Jones]

I look to VN to provide something like this as part of their subscription
service.

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Caerwyn B Jones]

>> let's call it "utility computing" to be buzzword-compliant.  just
>> don't tell anyone it would actually work -- they won't believe you.

I think "grid" has more currency.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/35385.html

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Caerwyn B Jones]

>>... but at the same time, i often don't have a plan9/unix box
>> around to "os" to to run troff or produce PDF files for me.

A public registry server would help here in finding a PS/PDF service.
I'd be nice if a public Inferno registry existed, and a variety of services
to go with it.

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[andrey mirtchovski]

> A public registry server would help here in finding a PS/PDF service.
> I'd be nice if a public Inferno registry existed, and a variety of services
> to go with it.

let's call it "utility computing" to be buzzword-compliant.  just
don't tell anyone it would actually work -- they won't believe you.

andrey

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Bruce Ellis]

hmmm...

my service performs exactly that function but unfortunately someone's
gotta pay the bills.  so a few people are testing stuff for me (thanks
boyd, gg and others) but i can't make it a free "gee i'll just foot the
bill" service.  anyone interested in such a service please private e-mail me
meanwhile i'll just write more code, push the vc dudes and crank up
the berlioz.

brucee
> > A public registry server would help here in finding a PS/PDF service.
> > I'd be nice if a public Inferno registry existed, and a variety of services
> > to go with it.
>
> let's call it "utility computing" to be buzzword-compliant.  just
> don't tell anyone it would actually work -- they won't believe you.
>
> andrey
>
>

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[boyd, rounin]

a neat simple demo for the techo lunix zealot is to run
rio in a rio window in a rio window in a rio window ...

now try that with X!

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Tristan Seligmann]

On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 21:29:49 +0100, boyd, rounin wrote:
> a neat simple demo for the techo lunix zealot is to run
> rio in a rio window in a rio window in a rio window ...
>
> now try that with X!

ah, come on, it's not that hard to use xnest.

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[ron minnich]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Tristan Seligmann wrote:

> ah, come on, it's not that hard to use xnest.

yes, but that is the whole point. To do this in X, you need xnest. to do
this in rio, you need ... well, rio.

This is the same kind of argument we used to have as Unix people with
non-Unix people. The VMS and VM and MPE and RSX and MCP guys could always
argue, shown something in Unix, that they could do the same thing in their
OS given time and effort. They never quite got that the whole point was
that you didn't need to do anything extra at all in Unix; it was the
system as a whole that mattered, not this or that feature. They focused on
the branches and missed the forest.

So now we see this or that handy thing in Plan 9 that you can, with
sufficient effort, replicate in a less convenient (certainly less elegant)
way in non-Plan 9 environments; that is not the point.

What goes around, goes around.

ron

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Tristan Seligmann]

On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 13:42:22 -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> So now we see this or that handy thing in Plan 9 that you can, with
> sufficient effort, replicate in a less convenient (certainly less elegant)
> way in non-Plan 9 environments; that is not the point.

Sure, I understand completely; unfortunately, "no-one else" seems to get
it...

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[boyd, rounin]

> This is the same kind of argument we used to have as Unix people with
> non-Unix people. The VMS and VM and MPE and RSX and MCP guys could always
> argue, shown something in Unix, that they could do the same thing in their
> OS given time and effort. They never quite got that the whole point was
> that you didn't need to do anything extra at all in Unix; it was the
> system as a whole that mattered, not this or that feature. They focused on
> the branches and missed the forest.

yup i had some big blue boys telling me that with CICS (iirc) you could
serach and then _select by hand_ what you wanted.  i couldn't convince
them that grep was infinitely better.

another day piers needed a number and we had this thing called 'ring'.
more big blue boys and when he got the number in < 1 second (on
a VAX 11/780) they remarked:

    what sort of RDB is that!!?

err, grep on a flat file.

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[boyd, rounin]

> ah, come on, it's not that hard to use xnest.

that's the _point_ -- it just works without external crap.

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Geoff Collyer]

If memory serves, xnest is a relatively new X program; I'm pretty sure
there was no recursive X server when X11 was new, nor for years
afterward.  Somebody had to go to a lot of trouble.

Does xnest actually work now?  It didn't the last time I tried it (I
forget the details; maybe mouse clicks were being lost).  I got the
impression that it wasn't used much and thus bugs weren't getting
noticed nor fixed.

On the other hand, I cpu to my main cpu server and start a rio there
every day.  Every new window I open in that rio is on the cpu server.

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[ron minnich]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Geoff Collyer wrote:

> If memory serves, xnest is a relatively new X program; I'm pretty sure
> there was no recursive X server when X11 was new, nor for years
> afterward.  Somebody had to go to a lot of trouble.

I kinda remember first seeing xnest ca. 1996-7. It was just a tad
difficult to use.

> Does xnest actually work now?  It didn't the last time I tried it (I
> forget the details; maybe mouse clicks were being lost).  I got the
> impression that it wasn't used much and thus bugs weren't getting
> noticed nor fixed.

same here.

ron

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[David Arnold]

-->"Geoff" == Geoff Collyer <geoff@collyer.net> writes:

  Geoff> Does xnest actually work now?

not to obscure the point re: rio, in rio, Xnest works just fine, out
of the box from XFree86 (eg. on my Debian box).  i use it frequently
to debug my window manager.




d

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Charles Forsyth]

the point is really that whether xnest works or not, it's done
using special mechanisms, whereas rio working recursively
follows directly from its structure.  furthermore, and (i think) distinctively,
the implementation of `network graphics' requires nothing special to graphics: it's just
one application of a general-purpose mechanism in the
surrounding system.  it's that latter part that is much harder
to do in traditional Unix.  /dev/draw is in the name space.
network audio, `network network', ... the list is unbounded.

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[rob pike, esq.]

> a neat simple demo for the techo lunix zealot is to run
> rio in a rio window in a rio window in a rio window ...
>
> now try that with X!

i've found the more compelling demo is importing a /net
from a machine on the other side of an ssh tunnel, then
pinging your way to glory.

-rob

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Bruce Ellis]

i was doing some work for a mob who insisted i used a win
based vpn program.  so i ran the client and drawterm ...
wrote a little script to ssh sam -r from plan9 thru drawterm
and the win vpn - yes check out /mnt/term/net under win
drawterm.  flawless.

brucee
----- Original Message -----
From: "rob pike, esq." <r@geekmail.cc>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server


> > a neat simple demo for the techo lunix zealot is to run
> > rio in a rio window in a rio window in a rio window ...
> >
> > now try that with X!
>
> i've found the more compelling demo is importing a /net
> from a machine on the other side of an ssh tunnel, then
> pinging your way to glory.
>
> -rob

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Caerwyn B Jones]

I thought a page filesystem  would be nice. It would work like page except
mount a directory of numbered
files representing the pages. The inferno module would talk to ghostscript
through '#C' and return Inferno image files.
Standard Ghostscript comes with an Inferno device so it'd work on other
platforms besides p9.




|---------+--------------------------->
|         |           "Bruce Ellis"   |
|         |           <brucee         |
|         |           @chunder.com>   |
|         |           Sent by:        |
|         |           9fans-admin     |
|         |                           |
|         |                           |
|         |           02/04/2004 03:48|
|         |           PM              |
|         |           Please respond  |
|         |           to 9fans        |
|         |                           |
|---------+--------------------------->
  >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                                               |
  |        To:      <9fans@cse.psu.edu>                                                                                           |
  |        cc:                                                                                                                    |
  |        Subject: Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server                                                                    |
  >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|




just import '#C' from a p9 hosted inferno and use the os command.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Johnson" <fragment@nas.com>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server


> On Feb 3, 2004, at 7:51 AM, C H Forsyth wrote:
> > in useful combination.  i still use them both.
> > (that's not to say that i haven't got plans.)
>
> Does that mean we can expect a Ghostscript port to Inferno shortly?
>
> ;)
>
> -Jack

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[boyd, rounin]

> ... The inferno module would talk to ghostscript ...

cough

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[YAMANASHI Takeshi]

On Tue Feb  3 10:54:26 JST 2004, Charles Forsyth wrote:
> to be more precise, the answer to the good question
> 	If you were plowing a field what would you rather use, 2 strong oxen or 1024 chickens? -Seymour Cray
> seems to be ``well of course we'll use 1024+ strong(-ish) oxen''

Adding to that, in grid people, `share' means ``aren't there
any idle oxen down on which I can get laid my burden?   My
oxen are full already.''

Of course, everybody's oxen are full and there is no `share'
in them resulting the failure of inter-organization grid.

There can be a intra-organization grid.  But what it differs
from a cluster?
--

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[andrey mirtchovski]

> There can be a intra-organization grid.  But what it differs
> from a cluster?

A cluster generally assumes almost identical hardware, software and
capabilities.  Intra-organizational resource sharing is considered an
example of Meta/Distributed Computing (metacomputing was the buzzword
of choice after Distributed Computing's demise and before the rise of
Grids), while Grid Computing is resource sharing across administrative
domains...

As for oxen vs.  chickens -- that's a pretty tough one to decide
considering that today's commodity chicken can pull more than the
average ox.  Or at least that's the impression one gets out of looking
at the SPEC site...  Maybe chicken vs fleas is better, throwing in a
side note about the extinction of the Ox and how it affected the
world...

Andrey

PS: I'm too young to have cared about computers much when War Games
came out, but I've seen the pictures of the CM5 at LANL -- an Ox
composed of 64000 chickens :)

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Charles Forsyth]

>>As for oxen vs.  chickens -- that's a pretty tough one to decide
>>considering that today's commodity chicken can pull more than the

i was being kind and considering the 3GHz Pentium-4 PC that's apparently
required to run documents and spreadsheets not to mention games to be an ox.
certainly i find it acts like one with Windows, and Linux isn't far behind.

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[ron minnich]

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, YAMANASHI Takeshi wrote:

> Adding to that, in grid people, `share' means ``aren't there
> any idle oxen down on which I can get laid my burden?   My
> oxen are full already.''

The first problem is, that going back to the 70s, grids have never worked.
Check out rsexec from early 70s and tell me how Globus is any better. For
the decades of the 70s, 80s, 90s, and now, you can find some term that
corresponds to the term 'grid'. And you'll find that people had great
dreams and they all went down in flames, and the terms ended up getting
used by marketing to mean something other than they were supposed to.

This is happening now with grids -- Oracle in its new ads is calling
clusters grids!

The one ray of light in this mess is Plan 9. I'm convinced (probably
wrongly, as usual, but ...) that Plan 9 has really got what it takes to
really make grids a reality.

ron

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Martin C.Atkins]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:16:13 -0700 (MST) ron minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov> wrote:
> The one ray of light in this mess is Plan 9. I'm convinced (probably
> wrongly, as usual, but ...) that Plan 9 has really got what it takes to
> really make grids a reality.

Call me stupid, but I've yet to understand what a 'grid' really has
to offer me. Then again, I'm not in your business :-) !

Martin

--
Martin C. Atkins			martin@parvat.com
Parvat Infotech Private Limited		http://www.parvat.com{/,/martin}

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[ron minnich]

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Martin C.Atkins wrote:

> Call me stupid, but I've yet to understand what a 'grid' really has
> to offer me. Then again, I'm not in your business :-) !
>

nobody's stupid, just things look different from different places.

Lots of use has been made of "grids" or whatever you want to call them for
10-15 years now. What's really, really weird is that the examples come and
go, and everyone forgets them. I think I'd better start a section on my
web page.

ron

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Martin C.Atkins]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:34:09 -0700 (MST) ron minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Martin C.Atkins wrote:
> > Call me stupid, but I've yet to understand what a 'grid' really has
> > to offer me. Then again, I'm not in your business :-) !
>
> nobody's stupid, just things look different from different places.

Thanks for your broadmindedness!

> Lots of use has been made of "grids" or whatever you want to call them for
> 10-15 years now. What's really, really weird is that the examples come and

I'm sure that's true. And I'm not saying that grids are not extremely
useful for super-computer-type computing. Just that it seems pretty
irrelevant (in contrast to some of the hype?) in other problem
domains. Hence...

> go, and everyone forgets them. I think I'd better start a section on my
> web page.

I'll look forward to learning more, and particularly look out for
counter-examples to my statement above (the one about irrelevance!).

Thanks!

Martin

--
Martin C. Atkins			martin@parvat.com
Parvat Infotech Private Limited		http://www.parvat.com{/,/martin}

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[ron minnich]

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Martin C.Atkins wrote:

> I'm sure that's true. And I'm not saying that grids are not extremely
> useful for super-computer-type computing. Just that it seems pretty
> irrelevant (in contrast to some of the hype?) in other problem
> domains. Hence...

such as ...

- test vector generation for new chips
- semiconductor simulation
- financial modeling
- distributed  auto-place and route for FPGAs
- jet engine simulation

are these supercomputer apps? They're all very old uses of "grids", dating
back 12-15 years, 3 of them used Condor, one of them I ran (FPGAs).

ron

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Taj Khattra]

On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 08:16:13PM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> The one ray of light in this mess is Plan 9. I'm convinced (probably
> wrongly, as usual, but ...) that Plan 9 has really got what it takes to
> really make grids a reality.

vitanuova's inferno based grid stuff (www.vitanuova.com/solutions/grid/)
looks neat (well it's neat to read about in any case, compared to the
globus gooware).

-taj

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[andrey mirtchovski]

> vitanuova's inferno based grid stuff (www.vitanuova.com/solutions/grid/)
> looks neat (well it's neat to read about in any case, compared to the
> globus gooware).

VitaNuova has a great selling point for Inferno Grids which is often
used to belittle Plan 9's viability in this area -- their stuff can
easily be integrated with other operating systems.

All I'm hearing around here is "The world isn't going to switch and
run only Plan 9 you know".  Well, Inferno can deliver interoperability
now, which is better than saying "what the world needs to do is
implement 9p" :)

I'm waiting for publications to come out describing Inferno Grids in
better detail ...

andrey

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Bruce Ellis]

there's a pretty decent grid going on here.
not 4e; but inferno (and plan9) are simply
designed to utilize distributed resources.
my webserver runs on my linksys but all
of the resources are remote, cluttering my
pad enourmously.

the linksys imports '#C' from a p9 machine
so it can run presto's whois to Hostile the
hackers.  the big files are on various machines.
the cache is on a machine with a lot of memory.
it's all good.

product is "Mined Dealed Delivered".
yeah i did the pjw and got into trading.

brucee
----- Original Message -----
From: "andrey mirtchovski" <mirtchov@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server


...
> I'm waiting for publications to come out describing Inferno Grids in
> better detail ...
>
> andrey

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[C H Forsyth]

>>of the resources are remote, cluttering my
>>pad enourmously.

sounds like my loft.

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[C H Forsyth]

>>VitaNuova has a great selling point for Inferno Grids which is often
>>used to belittle Plan 9's viability in this area -- their stuff can
>>easily be integrated with other operating systems.

the latter part is true, but i don't think i'd use it to belittle Plan
9's use in certain grid work.  as brucee described, one can put them
in useful combination.  i still use them both.
(that's not to say that i haven't got plans.)

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Jack Johnson]

On Feb 3, 2004, at 7:51 AM, C H Forsyth wrote:
> in useful combination.  i still use them both.
> (that's not to say that i haven't got plans.)

Does that mean we can expect a Ghostscript port to Inferno shortly?

;)

-Jack

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Bruce Ellis]

just import '#C' from a p9 hosted inferno and use the os command.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Johnson" <fragment@nas.com>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server


> On Feb 3, 2004, at 7:51 AM, C H Forsyth wrote:
> > in useful combination.  i still use them both.
> > (that's not to say that i haven't got plans.)
>
> Does that mean we can expect a Ghostscript port to Inferno shortly?
>
> ;)
>
> -Jack

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Charles Forsyth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 157 bytes --]

since Ghostscript seemed to cross the Styx some time ago,
i suppose it must end up in Inferno sooner or later.
Circle 3 or Circle 4, that's the question.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2360 bytes --]

From: Jack Johnson <fragment@nas.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 19:53:34 -0800
Message-ID: <B4A001D0-56C5-11D8-A074-000A95E29604@nas.com>

On Feb 3, 2004, at 7:51 AM, C H Forsyth wrote:
> in useful combination.  i still use them both.
> (that's not to say that i haven't got plans.)

Does that mean we can expect a Ghostscript port to Inferno shortly?

;)

-Jack

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Jack Johnson]

> On Feb 3, 2004, at 7:51 AM, C H Forsyth wrote:
>> in useful combination.  i still use them both.
>> (that's not to say that i haven't got plans.)

Just slightly more seriously, which apps are keeping you from going
entirely Inferno?

-Jack

P.S.
I'm a little slow on the uptake, so very belatedly thank you for
posting the source to the BeBox port!  Now if I can just finish
cleaning the garage....

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Bruce Ellis]

all i need is a hosted inferno on any os which has functionality
or resources that are either impractical to port or proprietary.
why would i write troff in limbo when i can use 'os troff'?
rob said in very early inferno days something along the lines
of "don't just rewrite everything in limbo, it's a different world".
the ghostscript example has always been there as a one-liner.

brucee
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Johnson" <fragment@nas.com>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server


> > On Feb 3, 2004, at 7:51 AM, C H Forsyth wrote:
> >> in useful combination.  i still use them both.
> >> (that's not to say that i haven't got plans.)
>
> Just slightly more seriously, which apps are keeping you from going
> entirely Inferno?

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Charles Forsyth]

>>of "don't just rewrite everything in limbo, it's a different world".

yes, it's sensible to avoid deja vu.
i've seen all the same things too many times now as it is.

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[boyd, rounin]

> yes, it's sensible to avoid deja vu.

and déjà vu ;)

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Jeff Sickel]

Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:

> yes, it's sensible to avoid deja vu.

DjVu on the other hand was a very nice wavelet based image system...

If only the world wasn't going towards vector graphics as much as it is these
days.

jas
___
remove the spamisham.

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[rog]

> DjVu on the other hand was a very nice wavelet based image system...

what are wavelets?

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Jeff Sickel]

rog@vitanuova.com wrote:
> > DjVu on the other hand was a very nice wavelet based image system...

> what are wavelets?

In this case the wavelets are used for bitmap image compression algorithms.

Unfortunately, ASCII doesn't exactly produce the equation correctly:

http://documents.wolfram.com/applications/wavelet/index2.html

But in the exact reference I was mentioning, http://djvu.sourceforge.net/
would be your best bet.  You could also look at http://www.wavelet.org/ though
that wouldn't exactly give you the most discrete definition.

Wavelet algorithms have also shown up in JPEG2000, but I'm not familiar
enough with that spec to really comment.

Unfortunately, the djvu base library is implemented in C++ which would put
the Plan 9 C compiler out of the running.  But nudging the port into a C
version would be a nice thing as I've had problems with various gcc versions
in the past.

jas
___
remove spamisham.

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[vdharani]

> all i need is a hosted inferno on any os which has functionality
> or resources that are either impractical to port or proprietary.
> why would i write troff in limbo when i can use 'os troff'?
> rob said in very early inferno days something along the lines
> of "don't just rewrite everything in limbo, it's a different world".
> the ghostscript example has always been there as a one-liner.

but wouldnt it be nice having everything in limbo and use it in all
platforms that run inferno? in the troff example, yes, you can do it. but
imagine you have troff in limbo. the benefits are definitely much more.

i feel limbo is a simple, nice language with which one can write reliable
apps. i am really surprised why people (including creators, people at the
lab, and rest of the 9fans) tend to ignore limbo.

i recently saw something like "370 Applications in Java" in a magazine
cover and wondered why limbo is so ignored even by us (9fans, inferno
fans). what is the actual problem? is it to do with licensing? or
something really wrong with limbo?

i understand existing apps that are huge and written in C may be difficult
to port to limbo. but why cant we write atleast new apps in limbo? if
licensing is an issue, cant vita nuova fix it or relax it for the sake of
saving both plan 9 and inferno?

regards
dharani

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Bruce Ellis]

> but wouldn't it be nice having everything in limbo and use it in all
> platforms that run inferno? in the troff example, yes, you can do it. but
> imagine you have troff in limbo. the benefits are definitely much more.

well let's go for a more extreme (real world) example.  why would i
write a multi band parametric equalizer and a small room reverb
simulator in limbo when i can simply import that functionality from a
proprietery device with lots of dsps?

> i understand existing apps that are huge and written in C may be difficult
> to port to limbo. but why cant we write atleast new apps in limbo?

every new app i write is in limbo or mash.

brucee

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[a]

sure, there's tons of stuff you wouldn't want to rewrite just because
there's a new system to target it for (unless your from certain GNU
projects). but at the same time, i often don't have a plan9/unix box
around to "os" to to run troff or produce PDF files for me. not to
mention the fact that some - many - things don't lend themselves well
to that sort of "fire and forget" operation. while we needn't port
ghostscript, per se, it would be nice to be able to produce PS or
PDF from inferno without the extra box.

now, yes, brucee's right: if you've got a box that does what you
want already, and you have access to that box whenever you want to
do that, figure out how to export the resource rather than porting
it. we've had styx interfaces to OCR systems on remote unix boxes
and TTS and ASR systems on boards running an embedded unix. if we
could have had a equally-performant version of these written in
limbo directly, we'd have been happier, but we didn't really care
much: we were interested in building with them as parts, and once
we had the interface to the parts, their internal construction was
a matter of curiosity and taste more than anything else.

besides, the more time spent rewriting existing stuff is less time
spent writing new stuff. you can do in limbo almost all of what
you can do in other languages, but you can also do things in limbo
that are impossible (or nearly so) in other languages. i know where
i'd rather spend my time.
ア

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[boyd, rounin]

> besides, the more time spent rewriting existing stuff is less time
> spent writing new stuff. you can do in limbo almost all of what
> you can do in other languages, but you can also do things in limbo
> that are impossible (or nearly so) in other languages. i know where
> i'd rather spend my time.

exactly. i know where i'm trying to spend mine ...

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Caerwyn Jones]

Bruce Ellis wrote:
> all i need is a hosted inferno ...

really, anything that can handle styx/9P2000.
The ideas in the Styx Architecture paper have only recently began to
sink in for me.

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Bruce Ellis]

wow, you are a lot sharper than some fresh folk from the inferno BU
who nevere got the little picture, let alone the big one.

brucee
----- Original Message -----
From: "Caerwyn Jones" <caerwyn@comcast.net>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server


> Bruce Ellis wrote:
> > all i need is a hosted inferno ...
>
> really, anything that can handle styx/9P2000.
> The ideas in the Styx Architecture paper have only recently began to
> sink in for me.

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[a]

exactly. see also the styx-on-a-brick project/demo VN did
getting a styx server running on the lego mindstorm kit.
sure, it's a toy, but really interesting. it exported a
namespace with sensor and motor files. you then build
other apps on top to make use of the resources. for
perversity, while doing a demo, i had the IR link to
the lego box (that's serial+IR links) in /chan on box A,
exported (over TCP/IP on ethernet) to box B who mounted
it into /mnt. box B exported that /mnt namespace to box
C (again, TCP/IP and ethernet) which ran a program that
accepted writes on /mnt/clock and turned them into sets
of commands into the /mnt namespace that would make the
clock show that time. then box C exported that file to
box D (in this case a iPaq, connected over WiFi) which
ran a GUI program where you could drag the hands or a
clock around or click somewhere and it would write the
time into /chan/clock. as far as every bit was concerned
the earlier bits may as well have been running remotely.
it worked wonderfully, and showing people how easy it
was to plug together (heck, it takes longer to
explain!) was a killer demo.
ア

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[ron minnich]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, andrey mirtchovski wrote:
> All I'm hearing around here is "The world isn't going to switch and
> run only Plan 9 you know".

"The world isn't going to switch and run Unix"
"The world will never use Linux"
"The world will never use PCs"

Take a year, take a new idea, you can find people who will dump on it.

ron

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Jack Johnson]

On Feb 2, 2004, at 6:20 PM, YAMANASHI Takeshi wrote:
> Of course, everybody's oxen are full and there is no `share'
> in them resulting the failure of inter-organization grid.
>
> There can be a intra-organization grid.  But what it differs
> from a cluster?

If latency isn't an issue (ha ha), geographically disparate
organization sharing would be interesting.  Borrow cycles from an
organization eight timezones away.

-Jack

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[ron minnich]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Jack Johnson wrote:

> If latency isn't an issue (ha ha), geographically disparate
> organization sharing would be interesting.  Borrow cycles from an
> organization eight timezones away.
>

It's been done, and history forgotten. In the early 90s, IBM Watson ran a
global Condor flock, Tokyo->Zurich. You could watch activity follow the
terminator (day/night) line.

ron

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[boyd, rounin]

> It's been done, and history forgotten.

yeah, late '90s the bank i was contracted to had all their mail/web
services run/managed and firewalled out of paris.  now if they'd
just _told_ me that before i got sent out to do sendmail hackery.

but, the shell and an awk script smashed 10k addresses through
it, so it looked ok.  sort of 'programing the inputs', but really
verifying the outputs based on what the old logs did.

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[vdharani]

> On Feb 2, 2004, at 6:20 PM, YAMANASHI Takeshi wrote:
>> Of course, everybody's oxen are full and there is no `share'
>> in them resulting the failure of inter-organization grid.
>>
>> There can be a intra-organization grid.  But what it differs
>> from a cluster?
>
> If latency isn't an issue (ha ha), geographically disparate
> organization sharing would be interesting.  Borrow cycles from an
> organization eight timezones away.
may be, in a way, recent viruses are good examples? :-)

regards
dharani

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[vdharani]

>> On Feb 2, 2004, at 6:20 PM, YAMANASHI Takeshi wrote:
>>> Of course, everybody's oxen are full and there is no `share'
>>> in them resulting the failure of inter-organization grid.
>>>
>>> There can be a intra-organization grid.  But what it differs
>>> from a cluster?
>>
>> If latency isn't an issue (ha ha), geographically disparate
>> organization sharing would be interesting.  Borrow cycles from an
>> organization eight timezones away.
> may be, in a way, recent viruses are good examples? :-)
btw, i meant software viruses.

>
> regards
> dharani

[9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Matthias Teege]

12g without battery

http://www.gumstix.org

Matthias

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[vdharani]

> 12g without battery
>
> http://www.gumstix.org
>
Thats good but I wonder what would be the cost.

Given that there are many devices (MP3, DVD players, PDAs) that are sold
really cheap these days, I was hoping that we will soon see non-x86 CPU
modules/boards for <$50. But I dont see that happening. Whats more, x86
clone based boards are getting cheaper although not too low.

It would be nice to see boards with just CPU, memory, ethernet (or some
connectivity) only that are really low cost with which one could do grid
computing without draining too much of money. Why is it not happening?

Regards
dharani

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Bruce Ellis]

The linksys wrt54g is less than US$90, even on amazon.
MIPS processor, details available all over the net.
inferno runs just fine on it.  i'm not sure you'd want to
do grid with them tho unless you want to be bathed in
2.4GHz - or i guess you could turn off all the 802.11 stuff.

brucee

> It would be nice to see boards with just CPU, memory, ethernet (or some
> connectivity) only that are really low cost with which one could do grid
> computing without draining too much of money. Why is it not happening?
>
> Regards
> dharani

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[vdharani]

> The linksys wrt54g is less than US$90, even on amazon.
> MIPS processor, details available all over the net.
wow. thats good to know.

> inferno runs just fine on it.  i'm not sure you'd want to
how difficult(or easy) is it to see inferno running in it? i play with vita
nuova's inferno. i would like to try it if you or someone can tell me (or
hint me):
  - the contents of kernel config files
  - how to burn kernel image
  - whether any special changes need to be made

i know it takes time to take and respond to these questions but it saves
lot of time for someone who is new to the platform. generally, i have found
that i struggle till I build the first image and see it running. after that
it seems to be easy.

> do grid with them tho unless you want to be bathed in
> 2.4GHz - or i guess you could turn off all the 802.11 stuff.
yes, the first thing i would want to do is turn off 802.11.

this one apart, have you come across any other hardware that runs
inferno/plan9 that is small, low-powered and has minimum hardware (cpu,
mem, say, ethernet)? may be better cpu power, little more memory than
linksys wrt54g? i liked PS2 but again it is a bit bulky.

regards
dharani

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Bruce Ellis]

charles may be able to help you with a 4e image,
he has a wrt54g.  my OzInferno is divergent.

brucee
----- Original Message -----
From: <vdharani@infernopark.com>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server


> > The linksys wrt54g is less than US$90, even on amazon.
> > MIPS processor, details available all over the net.
> wow. thats good to know.
>
> > inferno runs just fine on it.  i'm not sure you'd want to
> how difficult(or easy) is it to see inferno running in it? i play with vita
> nuova's inferno. i would like to try it if you or someone can tell me (or
> hint me):
>   - the contents of kernel config files
>   - how to burn kernel image
>   - whether any special changes need to be made

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[andrey mirtchovski]

> charles may be able to help you with a 4e image,
> he has a wrt54g.  my OzInferno is divergent.
>

do you use the same Tk windowing interface? if not -- can we see it? :)

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Bruce Ellis]

i don't use Tk stuff much at all, most of my systems don't
even have /dev/draw.  where it is used (windows emu)
it is the old school with extensions like ktree.

brucee
----- Original Message -----
From: "andrey mirtchovski" <mirtchov@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server


> > charles may be able to help you with a 4e image,
> > he has a wrt54g.  my OzInferno is divergent.
> >
>
> do you use the same Tk windowing interface? if not -- can we see it? :)

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Charles Forsyth]

> It would be nice to see boards with just CPU, memory, ethernet (or some
> connectivity) only that are really low cost with which one could do grid
> computing without draining too much of money. Why is it not happening?

most people doing grid computing in my growing experience tend to want to
do quite a bit of computation or mess with big data, which is one reason
for wanting to split up the load, and consequently typically
floating-point is important and usually overall computational speed is important
and memory and IO bandwidth are often important, all of those tending to work
against `really low cost' where some compromise is made.

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Charles Forsyth]

>>most people doing grid computing in my growing experience tend to want to
	...
>>and memory and IO bandwidth are often important, all of those tending to work
>>against `really low cost' where some compromise is made.

to be more precise, the answer to the good question
	If you were plowing a field what would you rather use, 2 strong oxen or 1024 chickens? -Seymour Cray
seems to be ``well of course we'll use 1024+ strong(-ish) oxen''

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[boyd, rounin]

> If you were plowing a field what would you rather use, 2 strong oxen or
1024 chickens? -Seymour Cray
> seems to be ``well of course we'll use 1024+ strong(-ish) oxen''

trouble is the oxen driver.  we have the cpu, etc ... but the art of using
them has been lost.

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[ron minnich]

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Bruce Ellis wrote:

> The linksys wrt54g is less than US$90, even on amazon.
> MIPS processor, details available all over the net.
> inferno runs just fine on it.

HOWTO anyone :-)

ron

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[ron minnich]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 vdharani@infernopark.com wrote:

> It would be nice to see boards with just CPU, memory, ethernet (or some
> connectivity) only that are really low cost with which one could do grid
> computing without draining too much of money. Why is it not happening?

I keep looking. There is a knee in the cost curve, and it always seems to
center around PC-like boards that use the standard PC power supply
connectors -- no big surprise, right? The volume drives it all. All the
world's a PC.

Even if you go to a 5V only board you immediately double the price. It's
really amazing.

ron

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[vdharani]

> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 vdharani@infernopark.com wrote:
>
>> It would be nice to see boards with just CPU, memory, ethernet (or
>> some connectivity) only that are really low cost with which one could
>> do grid computing without draining too much of money. Why is it not
>> happening?
>
> I keep looking. There is a knee in the cost curve, and it always seems
> to  center around PC-like boards that use the standard PC power supply
> connectors -- no big surprise, right? The volume drives it all. All the
>  world's a PC.
>
> Even if you go to a 5V only board you immediately double the price.
> It's  really amazing.
true.

i liked nanoEngine from BrightStar Engineering
(http://www.brightstareng.com). it is compact, can boot off flash, has
100Mb ethernet, and can support upto 64MB RAM. but the cost is much higher
than the low-cost Walmart PC.

whenever i try to find a cheap, compact board, i finally come to a
conclusion that PC is a cheaper solution.

i want to see a board that

- has a cpu
- can have memory upto 64MB
- has ethernet (and the board itself can be powered from ethernet?)
- is about the size of nanoEngine
- costs <$50

it may seem unreasonable, but i think it is possible for atleast a funded
project that needs to use grid computing.

regards
dharani

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Jack Johnson]

On Feb 3, 2004, at 6:12 PM, <vdharani@infernopark.com> wrote:
> - has ethernet (and the board itself can be powered from ethernet?)

Now that's something I hadn't considered, and is a great idea.

We use several devices at work where we have to resort to Cat 5 power
injectors, but true power over Ethernet for a cheap grid device would
be pretty nice.

Though, the cost of the PoE switch might offset the cost savings a bit.
  ;)  The simplification might be well worth it, though.

-Jack

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[Tomas Heran]

Please have a look at www.gumstix.com - they sell the gumstix machines
there. The price is a little more than $100.

Regards,
Tomas

vdharani@infernopark.com wrote in message news:<37641.192.11.226.116.1075762906.squirrel@www.infernopark.com>...
> > 12g without battery
> >
> > http://www.gumstix.org
> >
> Thats good but I wonder what would be the cost.
> 
> Given that there are many devices (MP3, DVD players, PDAs) that are sold
> really cheap these days, I was hoping that we will soon see non-x86 CPU
> modules/boards for <$50. But I dont see that happening. Whats more, x86
> clone based boards are getting cheaper although not too low.
> 
> It would be nice to see boards with just CPU, memory, ethernet (or some
> connectivity) only that are really low cost with which one could do grid
> computing without draining too much of money. Why is it not happening?
> 
> Regards
> dharani

Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server

[boyd, rounin]

> Please have a look at www.gumstix.com - they sell the gumstix machines
> there. The price is a little more than $100.

christ, that site uses flash 7.0 -- you have been warned.