[RooneyX]

Why can't we combine the power of our machines over a gigabit network?

Think about it, what if I had two 17 inch Powerbooks side by side on my table connected over ethernet, why not have a feature in OSX to combine the power of both machines so that OSX boots up on one machine but then uses the CPU, memory and displays of both machines to make a supercomputer with my desktop spread across both monitors? With the bandwidth Macs have this should be possible. There might be a slight bottleneck here and there but otherwise the combined power would still be tremendous.

Imagine having two Dual G5s with two 23 inch Cinema Displays and combining them into one machine? Photoshop, Lightwave, etc would fly without having to set up batch rendering within an application.

[Scarpa]

You can, it's just not very practical for small scale use. For one, even though Gigabit Ethernet is fast, it becomes a HUGE bottleneck compared to memory, processor and disk speeds. So you'd have to be working on stuff that doesn't need to transfer a lot of data back and forth between processors.

If you want to look at a real world application of this concept search around for the supercomputer cluster that Virginia Tech just built out of 1100 G5 PowerMacs.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Scarpa:
So you'd have to be working on stuff that doesn't need to transfer a lot of data back and forth between processors.

Hey, most of us would hardly clog up that bandwidth, some of us would, but by and by I think the majority of us would be drooling over the extra power. I'd love it and use it for sure!

And naturally networking speeds will increase if the feature for network supercomputing is there. Imagine one day having a wireless 10GB network using the power of something like four computers around your home. You could set up a film production and special effects company in your own home. It's bound to happen, let's have OSX do it first at the consumer level!

[mitchell_pgh]

Just wait until we see the quad G5 xServe!

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Hey, most of us would hardly clog up that bandwidth, some of us would, but by and by I think the majority of us would be drooling over the extra power. I'd love it and use it for sure!

And naturally networking speeds will increase if the feature for network supercomputing is there. Imagine one day having a wireless 10GB network using the power of something like four computers around your home. You could set up a film production and special effects company in your own home. It's bound to happen, let's have OSX do it first at the consumer level!

The real problem isn't the data transfer rate (although that's a huge bottleneck. I take it you haven't realized that main memory, even on a G3, can transfer upwards of 8 times as fast as gigabit ethernet), the realy problem is the latency (amount of time before it starts sending data after its been requested). Clusters are fun, but useless for most tasks (3d rendering is one that they're good for, which is why most 3d programs have build in clustering tools). IF someone figures out how to do near-ram latency and bandwidth networking, then OSX should be able to take advantage of it with relatively little effort on Apple's part.

[xylon]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Just wait until we see the quad G5 xServe!

Must...hold...back...drool...

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Just wait until we see the quad G5 xServe!

How does it run Unreal 2003?