Browse thread
thousands of CPU cores
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2008-07-12 (00:23) |
From: | Oliver Bandel <oliver@f...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] thousands of CPU cores |
Zitat von Peng Zang <peng.zang@gmail.com>: > -----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