Slashdot Mirror

A quick google search for "Autonomous Audi TTS hardware" turned up these articles, offering various details on the hardware used:
http://sun.systemnews.com/articles/143/2/feature/22601
http://www.audiusanews.com/newsrelease.do;jsessionid=2CB13CF6B9E286A75E8E2B1663E63318?id=1589
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/audi/2010-autonomous-audi-tts-pikes-peak-ar92542.html

Since you apparently missed the difference, DPI != resolution.

A 50 inch screen at 1080p is going to have a much lower per inch pixel count than the same 1080p packed into a smaller space.

So to take his statement piece by piece,

Even three low end 20 inch monitors will give a much higher resolution, and much, much higher DPI than I could get for the same amount of money spent on a single large display.

3X20 inch screens at 1920x1080 == 5760x1080 or 6220800 total pixels.
or the cheap option
3x20 inch screen at 1680x1050 == 5040x1050 or 5292000 total pixels .
compared to
1x60inch display (approx same diagonal length/ desk space) @ 1920x1080 == 2073600 total pixels .

So, yes, you get a much higher resolution with 3 smaller screens compared to one huge one.

Now, for the second (and Imho the more important ) half of the statement.

much, much higher DPI than I could get for the same amount of money

I'm going to use your 37inch display as an example for this one, as it will be easier for you to test.

1080p == 1920x1080. if we assume that both your screen and my 20 inch are using the standard 16:9 aspect ratio, then we can calculate physical dimensions and Thus DPI/PPI ( dots per inch/pixels per square inch ).

37 inches at 16:9 1080p == 32.25" * 18.14" ( averaged from amazon's listings )
20 inches at 16:9 1080p == 17.43" × 9.81"

Now, common sense would probably tell us that the same number of pixels on a larger surface would require larger or more spread out pixels, but i'm going to assume that common sense isn't so common.

If you've already gotten the point, stop reading here.

1920/32.25 = 59.53
1080/18.14 = 59.53

So that's a 60 DPI screen.

60 * 60 == 3600 pixels per square inch.

17.43" × 9.81"

1920/17.43 = 110.15
1080/9.81 = 110.10

so that's a 110DPI screen

110 * 110 = 12100 pixels per square inch.

That's almost twice the DPI, and more than three times the PPI.

Which do you think causes less eye strain?

I'll stick to my 20 inch displays until the larger screens can catch up, thanks.

BTW: Just to rub it in a bit, My used Sun CRT monitor can handle 1600*1200 at 22 inches. Sun That's 90DPI, or 8264 PPI. Still more than your $1500 screen, and it only cost me $20.

I've also got 2 of These that are almost 10 years old now.
2048 x 1536 @ 20 inches. 128 DPI and 16384 PPI.
They cost me $300 each.

JRuby fate was already discussed on slashdot and there is nothing new on IBM program. Every vendor has these, every vendor offer iniciatives toward purchasing his wares.

OTOH, if IBM really offering 64k$ for single-socket CMT server, then it can be really good purchase for customer, considered that Sun T1000 (1st generation niagara) cost less than $5000.

So
1. Buy one Sun T1000 for $5k
2. Get 64k$ from IBM
3. ???
4. 59 thousand dollars profit :)

Oh, and Sun server outperforms IBM Power

Does the hardware have a console with a network port?

Examples:
- On DELL systems, there are these DRAC cards allowing a https connection to the console.
- On SUN hardware, there is ILOM (x86) and RSC (sparc).
- IBM xSeries has this thing.
- You may be to connect a serial line to ttyA from another server to 'tip' for console, making the security a little easier. See this.
- I'm sure there are others for HP, etc...
- Fancy "KVM swicthes.
- There may even be a 3rd party PCI option

Advantages:
- Console sessions require login/pass (some even accept keys)
- You can set your firewall rule to specific IP endpoints
- Minimal cost
- Minimal techy techy knowledge
- No extra software to install

To solve your 'tail -f' requirement; run nrpe/nagios, or even simpler use *.* @loghost in /etc/syslog.conf and set the correct loghost in /etc/hosts.

I understood that you presently run X11, if that isn't necessary with a hardware option and shipping logs, you may be able to run a straight terminal on the host. Unless, of course, your number cruncher requires it.

I think he's trying to refer to SerDes.

The T2 has a SerDes switch connecting processor cache, RAM, PCIe buses,
and the 10 Gb Ethernet interfaces, all on-chip.

Impressive bandwidth, over 1 Tb/second total if I read correctly.
See the chart on page 16 of the PDF on the page below:

http://sun.systemnews.com/articles/108/3/hw/17688

Lots of tech details in this Sun presentation too, including power (84W max
for 8 cores/64 threads, including Ethernet and RAM controllers).

It has a cryptographic unit per core too. The PDF prezo linked by the page below says that bandwidth of the 8 crypto units is enough to run the on-chip 10 GbE ports encrypted. Sounds like an opportunity for some interesting applications -- VPN, SSL, SAN/NAS encryption, anyone?

All that and the 64 threads run at 84 watts maximum (not TDP).

http://sun.systemnews.com/articles/108/3/hw/17688

-Niagara 2 Key Features -

    Second generation chip multi-threading processor optimized
    for Space, Power and Performance (SWaP)

    8 Sparc Cores, 4MB shared L2 cache; Supports concurrent
    execution of 64 threads

    Twice UltraSparc T1's throughput performance and
    performance/Watt

    Ten times improvement in Floating Point throughput
    performance

    Integrates important SOC components on chip: Two 10G
    Ethernet (XAUI) ports on chip and Advanced Cryptographic
    support at wire speed

    On-chip PCI-Express, Ethernet, and FBDIMM memory interfaces
    are SerDes based

-

Niagara 2 is the first 64-bit 64-thread SPARC "System on a chip"
from Sun based on the power-efficient CMT architecture optimized
for Space, Power and Performance (SWaP). It is the successor to
Niagara 1, which is known in the market as UltraSPARCR T1. It
doubles Niagara 1's throughput performance, significantly
improves Floating point throughput performance, has advanced
cryptography support and two 10G ethernet ports on chip.

Solaris might someday run on PowerPC (again).

http://sun.systemnews.com/articles/78/4/news/13600

Running Solaris inside Mac-on-linux or Mac-on-Mac would be cool.

It's not standard, but hardware RAID for E(2|4)50s is available...


Your Working Boy,