Zitat von Peng Zang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Thursday 10 July 2008 11:01:31 pm Brian Hurt wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Gerd Stolpmann wrote: > > > I wouldn't take this article too seriously. It's just > speculation. > > > > I would take the article seriously. > > > > > Just open up your mind to this perspective: It's a big risk for > the CPU > > > vendors to haven taken the direction to multi-core. > > > > *Precisely*. It also stands in stark contrast to the last 50 or so > years > > of CPU development, which focused around making single-threaded > code > > faster. And, I note, it's not just one CPU manufacturer who has > done this > > (which could be chalked up to stupid management or stupid > engineers)- but > > *every* CPU manufacturer. And what do they get out of it, other > than > > ticked off software developers grumbling about having to switch to > > multithreaded code? > > I think we can all agree that more computing units being used in > parallel is > going to be the future. The main point here is that a shared-memory > architecture is not necessarily (and in my opinion doubtful) the > approach > that will be taken for large numbers of CPUs. [...]
For example, if you have a non-profit research project, you can use the BOINC infrastructure, which provides about 580000 PCs to help you :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Open_Infrastructure_for_Network_Computing There is no Shared-Mem as we know it from our local PCs, there is distributed calculation around the whole planet. Threads will not help there ;-) Ciao, Oliver _______________________________________________ Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
