------------------------------------------------------------------------ A poll associated with this post was created, to vote and see the results, please visit http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=43198 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Question: Do you agree with this posting? - Yes - No - In the middle ------------------------------------------------------------------------
thx for the reply, i found this very interesting. you'll have to forgive my lack of accuracy when i air my ideas, i'm not as advanced as many others here, nor am i careful to be precise as i need be. i'll explain: Zaragon;267478 Wrote: > Take a look at it this way what functions do the slimserver/SB do that > would need to be replicated in hardware. > > 1. Transcoding from IP to audio via various codecs. > 2. Database search > 3. Web serving > 4. File serving > 5. IP communicating > > The SB already does 1 so no need for a specialist device to do this the > DSP chips already do it. 5 is already done in specialist chips so they > are available for integration. interesting, someone else in this thread said the opposite. i have no idea who is right, but i suspect its you and even if not, surely its possible anyway, so moot. so as you said, 1 and 5 not an issue. Zaragon;267478 Wrote: > Right so items 2, 3 and 4. These are really useful functions that are > used throughout the IT world. If these could be done in hardware then > this would be fantastic as databases are used extensively. > > OK so does Oracle or IBM produce a specialist hardware chipset that > handles database searching/interaction. Unless someone knows better > they don't and IBM having chip manufacturing capability would be able > to do it if they wanted to. In fact they both use high performance > general purpose processors. here is where i mis-spoke. i understand that what you are saying is correct. what i was first talking about was saying that transcoding could be done by special chips, and u say it already is. when other issues were raised, i meant to imply that chips could accelerate perl or whatever functions, bring them to some degree into hardware. to whatever degree they can't, then we get into the price-performance-features equation, and i understand some things would be different or even cut out. considering how powerful small chips are, i think it would be possible to do this. i admit, i'm not an expert, but again, this is a suggestion, not a command. Zaragon;267478 Wrote: > There are hundreds of websites served around the world. How many of > these use a hardware device. Even webservers embedded into simple > devices like routers use general purpose microcontrollers. yes, but the webserver is in a chip. if a router can do it, then at least the interface of SS could do it. again, the question would be a list of what specific items SS would need substantial horsepower for, and from there, which ones could and couldn't be done with relatively small, relatively cheap, passively cooled chips. Zaragon;267478 Wrote: > Finally file serving. A NAS is a specialist file serving box so how many > are driven using a specialist device. Most seem to be driven using a > general purpose microprocessor. i don't know why its gotten lost in translation, but i am not suggesting a fat box / nas device. i am suggesting only a fat box, meaning SB/SS combined. now, if you mean SS will have file tasks to whatever storage it connects to, i don't know how strenuous that would be, but if the index was on internal flash, i would think it would be quite rapid. Zaragon;267478 Wrote: > So the point being that some very big companies would benefit enormously > from specialist hardware that could perform such core functions. Now if > Oracle, IBM or others can't do it then what chance does Slim/Logitech > have. interesting i did a websearch b/c i was curious and there's a lot of research about doing just this, some of it quite old. to reiterate, i meant a GPC but one that had been tailored to accelerate the needs of SS to whatever degree practical. AGAIN EVERYONE, i'm just suggesting the idea. lets say it isn't possible today, then my Q would be, how far off is it until you could put SS in the box with SB retaining most of the features and performance at a reasonable price? -- MrSinatra www.LION-Radio.org Using: Squeezebox2 w/SS 6.5.5 (beta!?) - Win XP Pro SP2 - 3.2ghz / 2gig ram - D-Link DIR-655 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MrSinatra's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2336 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=43198 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
