🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <11566@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, rms@well.sf.ca.us (richard marlon stein) writes:
|> Try muxing the outputs from 1000 framebuffers into a single analog stream.
|> I would rather pass on this approach.  The PixelFlow box captures the output
|> from a composition network rated at 4 Gbytes/s into a single frambeubffer.
|>
|> I don't believe this approach is truly scalable either, since its still
|> an example of the N to 1 mux problem.  So it is, in my opinion, contention
|> limited (the laws of physics won't cooperate and provide infinite digital
|> bus or network bandwidth).

    PixelFlow should be extremely scalable. The composition network
has fixed bandwidth no matter how many renderers are used, and latency
due to the length of the composition network increases very slowly as
additional rendering boards are added.

    If you're referring to some other aspect, please explain in more
detail.

|> I advocate a tessellated display approach myself, where each tessellation
|> element owns a processor, framebuffer, and display.	The trick is to coordinate
|> the system temporally.  The scalable concurrent visualization system trades
|> contention for asynchronous execution.

    If you mean that each processor is responsible for a fixed screen
area, this approach wastes most of the processors when looking at
something far away. It also trades off moving pixels for moving
primitives, and moving primitives is definitely not scalable.
Pixel-Planes 5 uses a considerably more complex variant of this
decomposition and partly addresses these concerns.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    "Totally bounded: A set that can be patrolled by a finite number
     of arbitrarily near-sighted policemen."    A. Wilonsky, 1978

--
Moderated by SCRI Vis <>           Submissions to: graphics@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Guy, John R. Murray   <> Administrivia to: graphics-request@scri1.scri.fsu.edu