Am Mittwoch, 29. Januar 2003 19:16 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:20:26 EST, James Thompson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > ... I have done much research in the field of computer /hardware/
> > suitable for commercial Digital Content Creation (P4 Xeon; Wildcat
> > graphics; ART's "PURE" raytracing PCI render board, etc. ...) and now
>
> Hmm.. so we're looking at high-end rendering, which is usually a CPU hog.
>
> > 1. Kernel Patches - pre-empt and low latency;
>
> so I'm not clear on why you're worried about low latency? Remember that
> it *does* come with an overhead
What? --- Sorry, quantify it. I can't.
All low latency and pre-emption tests have showed _improved_ throughput (Yes)
and much better "multi media" (video/audio) "experience" ;-)
No measurable overhead an single and SMP systems (both Athlon).
That's why it is in 2.5/2.6.
> - the low-latency stuff is good if you're
> more concerned about fast response than total system load (for instance,
> on my laptop I'm willing to give up 5% of the CPU if it makes the X server
> run perceivably faster. If I was doing a lot of rendering, I'd want that
> 5% for user cycles.
But you want to have the much better "task switching behavior" together with
the "brand new" O(1) scheduler.
> Could you be more specific regarding what sort of content you are making?
> (i.e. single frame images suitable for monitor display (1600x1200 and
> smaller), or large-format for high-resolution printing (posters, etc), or
> video, etc..) The resources needed to produce a 10-minute video clip are
> different from the things you'll need to produce a 4 foot x 5 foot poster
> at 600DPI.
You mean single vs 2-/4-/8-/etc. (NUMA) SMP systems or even clusters? ;-)
Greetings,
Dieter
--
Dieter Nützel
Graduate Student, Computer Science
University of Hamburg
Department of Computer Science
@home: Dieter.Nuetzel at hamburg.de (replace at with @)
