Re: [9fans] Barrelfish

[matt <maht-9fans@maht0x0r.net>]

Sorry to kick this rotting horse but I just got back

>
>
>>You've got to feed in 2 hours of source material - 820Gb per stream, how?
>>
>>
>
>I suppose some sort of parallel bus of wires or optic fibres.
>
we call that "hand waving"

>If I have
>massively parallel processing I would want massively parallel IO to go with it.
>I.e. something like "read data starting from here" -> "here it is streaming one
>megabit in parallel down the bus at 1Ghz over 1 million channels"
>
>
While riding a unicorn

>would take advantage of perhaps 720 "cores" to encode a two hour video in 10
>second chunks with barely any Ahmdal effects,
>
>
This 720Gbit storage device sounds pretty good.

>People do this stuff every day.
>Have you heard of a render-farm?
>
>
Your sarcasm is cute. Have you used a render farm ? You're right that
rendering on a few cores is CPU bound. But you've moved the goalposts by
100,000,000 orders of magnitude.

We have this comic on the wall with "programmer|compiling" replaced with
"animator|rendering"

http://xkcd.com/303/

And there's a standing order that you can't have sex unless you're
rendering.

>I'm not sure why I'm wasting time writing about this, it's obvious anyway.
>
>
Yeah, that must be why everyone is rendering Imax movies in a few seconds.

We can all imagine a place where computation is instant and we just say
"computer! run Sherlock Holmes on the Holodeck from where we left off,
but this time give it a Wild West theme".