Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Bad Scaling Problem Though (Score 1) 29

by grilled-cheese (#47108873) Attached to: Test-Driving NVIDIA's GRID GPU Cloud Computing Platform

What version of Vmware View? Doesn't the vSGA scaling depend on which 'profile' you use?

See here:

That link is referencing a citrix only idea, but their general distinctions between user types is apt. As of View 5.3, there is no longer a lockin to NVIDIA products yet nobody has made any yet to my knowledge. Intel & AMD are on the list to produce something sometime.

Comment: Bad Scaling Problem Though (Score 4, Insightful) 29

by grilled-cheese (#47102359) Attached to: Test-Driving NVIDIA's GRID GPU Cloud Computing Platform
We very recently went through adding Grid cards to our VMware View infrastructure. The Grid K1 & K2 cards are a tradeoff on either more kepler processors or more cuda cores in addition to the quantity of RAM. VMware View can utilize a Grid card in either vSGA or vDGA modes (shared or direct passthrough of a kepler processor). From what I can discern, Dell only officially supports the Grid cards in their R720 server. That particular chassis can only accept 2 Grid cards max. So you can get your choice of 2, 4, 6, or 8 kepler processors. If you're using vDGA mode, you're creating a direct VDI desktop allocation of that core with DirectPath I/O. While this means that one desktop is going to have great performance, it means it isn't available for anyone else and you lose vMotion capability. If you run in vSGA mode, the performance per machine isn't as good as vDGA but more desktops can utilize the hardware. There arn't any good whitepapers I've found yet describing how far you can stretch a Grid K1, but the rule of thumb I got from another company who has ran them through their benchmark lab got around 25 desktops per K1 max. Therefore, assuming you've got a pair of them that means you can run ~50 desktops with a reduced performance when compared to vDGA. The technology still appears to be young to me, but we decided to take a chance and see how far we could take it.

Comment: It worked before (Score 1) 475

by grilled-cheese (#47008061) Attached to: Comcast Predicts Usage Cap Within 5 Years
Yeah, because that worked out so well for consumers in the mobile phone space...

Also, this isn't new. Suddenlink has been doing this for over a year for everyone in our region. A friend of mine constantly streams netflix because he has young kids and a stay at home wife. He uses 100% of his cap almost every month at the highest rate plans available. Without switching to a business contract for 10x the cost, he can't get a bigger cap.

+ - Questions to ask before buying a wireless router->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Before you start to conquer the best router, take the time to assess your needs. Otherwise, you could buy a much too powerful and expensive router for your needs. Or instead, you could be forced to buy a new one next year because you quickly saturated the capacity of the router. But how to dissect your needs?"
Link to Original Source

+ - Opportunity Breaks NASA's 40-Year Roving Record->

Submitted by astroengine
astroengine (1577233) writes "After nine years of hard Mars roving, Mars Exploration Rover (MER) Opportunity has broken a 40-year-old extraterrestrial distance record. On Thursday, the tenacious six-wheeled robot drove 80 meters (263 feet), nudging the total distance traveled since landing on the red planet in 2004 to 35.760 kilometers (22.220 miles). NASA’s previous distance record was held by Apollo 17 astronauts Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt when, in December 1972, they drove their Lunar Roving Vehicle 35.744 kilometers (22.210 miles) over the lunar surface. Although it's broken the NASA distance record, it hasn't surpassed the international record, yet. The Soviet Lunokhod 2 remote-controlled moon rover roved 37 kilometers (23 miles) across the lunar surface and, so far, remains the undisputed champion of distance driving on an extraterrestrial surface."
Link to Original Source

User hostile.