Michael Schnell schrieb:
On 02/05/2014 10:51 AM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Judging by your explanation to Dido, it seems you must explain your
users the limits of their own brains. Adding monitors and indicators
does not
guarantee that they will process more info :)
Please see the discussion on surveillance camera systems.
You can't sell a (huge) system that does not fulfill the customer's
expectations regarding their workflow. :-( .
Then you have to include appropriate hardware, where multiple GPUs are
preferable to multiple CPUs when it comes to processing multiple video
streams concurrently.
E.g. my over 10 year old TV card talks directly to the graphics card, so
that TV display frequently continues even if the system is unresponsive
due to some crash. When nowadays hardware doesn't allow for more video
sources, fed into one video card, then still multiple (small) monitors
with dedicated graphics cards could be used to display one video stream
each. Such a configuration should outperform every threaded software
solution, where the video data must go through a single CPU bottleneck.
Please note that even a CPU with multiple cores doesn't have multiple
data busses for the cores. That's the narrowest bottleneck, which limits
the throughput on every standard machine. Next comes the DMA over one
common data bus, which again limits the overall throughput. When instead
you spend each camera its own small machine and monitor, the overall
throughput can be increased (scaled) without limitations.
DoDi
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
