And, hey, maybe lantronics will actually sell them ... I still haven't
heard back from ionics.
ron
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 7:24 AM
Subject: world's smallest Linux networking server
To: ron minnich rminn...@gmail.com
This is an odd little part, you
we'll post an update here when actual source code produced during
this year's Google Summer of Code has been made available on project
hosting on Google Code.
http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2009/08/wrapping-our-fifth-google-summer-of.html
Some mentoring orgs already posted results.
Rethinking multi-core systems as distributed heterogeneous
systems. Thoughts?
http://www.sigops.org/sosp/sosp09/papers/baumann-sosp09.pdf
Tim Newsham
http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Tim Newsham news...@lava.net wrote:
Rethinking multi-core systems as distributed heterogeneous
systems. Thoughts?
Somehow this feels related to the work that came out of Berkeley a year
or so ago. I'm still not convinced what is the benefits of multiple
Somehow this feels related to the work that came out of Berkeley a year
or so ago. I'm still not convinced what is the benefits of multiple
kernels. If you are managing a couple of 100s of cores a single kernel
would do just fine, once the industry is ready for a couple dozen of
thousands PUs --
I'm not familiar with the berkeley work.
Me either. Any chance of some references to this?
And how does one deal with heterogeneous cores and complex on chip
interconnect topologies? Barrelfish also gas a nice benefit in that
it could span coherence domains.
There's no real evdence that single kernels do well with hundreds of
real cores (as opposed to hw threads) - in fact most
http://ramp.eecs.berkeley.edu/
Tim: Andrew Baumann is aware of Plan 9 but their approach is quite a
bit different. They are consciously avoiding the networking issue as
well(they've been asked to extend their messaging model to the network
and have actively said they're not interested).
On Wed,
http://ramp.eecs.berkeley.edu/
Tim: Andrew Baumann is aware of Plan 9 but their approach is quite a
bit different. They are consciously avoiding the networking issue as
well(they've been asked to extend their messaging model to the network
and have actively said they're not interested).
Have you read the paper? I don't think you understand the difference
in scope or goals here.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:45 PM, erik quanstrom quans...@coraid.com wrote:
http://ramp.eecs.berkeley.edu/
Tim: Andrew Baumann is aware of Plan 9 but their approach is quite a
bit different. They are
On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Noah Evans wrote:
http://ramp.eecs.berkeley.edu/
Tim: Andrew Baumann is aware of Plan 9 but their approach is quite a
bit different. They are consciously avoiding the networking issue as
well(they've been asked to extend their messaging model to the network
and
Do want.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Eric Van Hensbergen eri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Noah Evans wrote:
http://ramp.eecs.berkeley.edu/
Tim: Andrew Baumann is aware of Plan 9 but their approach is quite a
bit different. They are consciously avoiding the
Did you find any ideas there particularly engaging?
I'm still digesting it. My first thoughts were that if my pc is a
distributed heterogeneous computer, what lessons it can borrow from earlier
work on distributed heterogeneous computing (ie. plan9).
I found the discussion on cache
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Tim Newsham news...@lava.net wrote:
I'm not familiar with the berkeley work.
Sorry I can't readily find the paper (the URL is somewhere on IMAP @Sun :-()
But it got presented at the Birkeley ParLab overview given to us by
Dave Patterson.
They were talking thin
And how does one deal with heterogeneous cores and complex on chip
interconnect topologies?
Good question. Do they have to be heterogeneous? My oppinion is that the
future of big multicore will be more Cell-like.
There's no real evdence that single kernels do well with hundreds of real
cores
16 matches
Mail list logo
