Re: [Swarm-Support] development priorities (was Re: Membership in Swarm Developmen Group)

[Marcus G. Daniels]

glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> > So yes simulation is computationally expensive, and thus the appeal of a
> > $700 machine that is ten times faster than a PC (a Cell-based
> > Playstation 3).   It happens that the organization I work for is
> > deploying a Cell-based petaflop computer, so as you might imagine I'm
> > biased by that!
> >     
>
> Sure.  But, support for a processor can more quickly be gained by using
> the same technology of most people who want to use that processor.  And
> my guess is that most people who want to use the Cell do NOT want to use
> Swarm.  So, porting the current Swarm to the Cell will really just make
> Swarm even more perverse and it won't increase the user base.
>   
The PS3 is an interesting value.  You can just use the PS3 as a 9 
processor Linux machine.  Check it out:

http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com

> A better option would be to invest resources in a technology that others
> will _help_ ensure runs on the Cell.  That way you're not doing all the
> work yourself and you see a higher ROI.  The same argument applies to
> porting Swarm to 64-bit architectures.  Why not use a technology that we
> already _know_ is going to work there?
>   
GCC compilers already work on the Cell.   And yes, Objective C.  Setting 
up the IPC is the problem.
> > I don't disagree that a reflective scheduler for both for simulation and
> > analysis could be useful, but let's face it: Few people aggressively use
> > the scheduling machinery that exists.  In some sense what you propose
> > seems more appropriate for a game programming setting.
> >     
>
> Well, my (unsubstantiated) claim is that people don't use the scheduler
> because they can't understand what they're creating.  
This list provided many examples and explanations of how to do it and 
what it means.  Given this, I conclude users don't do it because it 
isn't very useful for their purposes.  They aren't sufficiently 
motivated by the value.