Skip navigation.
Home
The QNX Community Portal

View topic - Embedded world...

Embedded world...

All topics.

Embedded world...

Postby juanplacco » Sat Mar 27, 2010 5:27 am

BTW, is there someone using QNX outside the embedded world?

JM
juanplacco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:30 pm

RE: Embedded world...

Postby ianc » Sat Mar 27, 2010 6:39 am

Sure. We use QNX (4.25) as a server platform for our Security/Access Control Management Software.
ianc
Active Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 6:04 am
Location: Bendigo, Australia

RE: Embedded world...

Postby juanplacco » Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:16 am

Thanks for the reply.

Someone else??... Someone using QNX 6.* ?

Regards,
JM
juanplacco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:30 pm

RE: Embedded world...

Postby mario » Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:18 pm

Most people I know do not use it in embedded system ;-)

ADDED: Maybe you should describe what you mean by embedded ?
Last edited by mario on Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mario
QNX Master
 
Posts: 4132
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2002 1:04 am

RE: Embedded world...

Postby maschoen » Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:02 pm

I use QNX 6 for development (Duh!) but also as an Internet server.
maschoen
QNX Master
 
Posts: 2644
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 5:18 pm

RE: Embedded world...

Postby juanplacco » Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:01 am

Embedded != "Some mother board into a big case + some powerfull uP with a big fan cooler + lots of PCI slots with many plugged cards doing something + big hard drive (maybe a raid) + + + KVM +++ " and finally... many of this "packages" (Industrial PCs (maybe 20)), working together into a single (qnet?) network.

well... :shock: ...
juanplacco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:30 pm

RE: Embedded world...

Postby mario » Wed Mar 31, 2010 10:50 am

we are down from 20 (qnx4) to 3 pc ( qnx6 ) ;-)
mario
QNX Master
 
Posts: 4132
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2002 1:04 am

Re: RE: Embedded world...

Postby Tim » Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:36 pm

mario wrote:we are down from 20 (qnx4) to 3 pc ( qnx6 ) ;-)


Ah, the power of Moore's Law + Multi-Cores.

We need only 2 QNX PC's (one PC104 board on the vehicle and one industrial rankmount in the control center) for our real time work (the GUI's are done on Windows). Furthermore we don't have any PCI plug in cards. All our I/O is done by external boards (custom designed + 3rd party) communicating over serial or ethernet (this saves the trouble of writing drivers).

Tim
Tim
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:28 am

RE: Re: RE: Embedded world...

Postby maschoen » Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:32 pm

Has anyone noticed that Moore's Law technically (if not effectively) has slowed down. Otherwise we'd have 8 or 16Ghz PIV's by now.
maschoen
QNX Master
 
Posts: 2644
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 5:18 pm

RE: Re: RE: Embedded world...

Postby mario » Wed Mar 31, 2010 6:42 pm

Well I think it still applies because although you don't have higher frequency, you have multiple core. AMD came out with a 12 Cores processor running at a maximum of 2.3GHz so that's 27.6 GHz ;-)
mario
QNX Master
 
Posts: 4132
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2002 1:04 am

RE: Re: RE: Embedded world...

Postby maschoen » Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:05 pm

Well that's what I meant by effectively. The key of course is that the cost per core must continue to come down if the speed does not go up.
maschoen
QNX Master
 
Posts: 2644
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 5:18 pm

Postby Tim » Thu Apr 01, 2010 1:04 pm

Also it's worth mentioning that the theoretical 27.6 Ghz is only possible if you have a threaded program that can take advantage of those cores. If you don't (say a PC game or formatting a Word document) then CPU speed hasn't improved much in the last half dozen years.

It's also obvious that Moore's law can't continue indefinitely because it's a geometric rate of increase that would have processors with virtually infinite speed/cores by the start of the next century.

Tim
Tim
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:28 am

Postby maschoen » Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:02 pm

quote="Tim"]Also it's worth mentioning that the theoretical 27.6 Ghz is only possible if you have a threaded program that can take advantage of those cores. If you don't (say a PC game or formatting a Word document) then CPU speed hasn't improved much in the last half dozen years.
[/quote]

Yes but note that in the case of formatting a Word document, once it takes less than a .1 second to format a 10,000 page document, it doesn't matter if you can speed it up or not. If you have 10,000 of these documents to format, well that's where multi-core comes in handy. The only place where you run short is a program that must run linearly and for which there is always a gain for running it faster. I can't think of any right now. There are probably some mathematical problems that work this way.

It's also obvious that Moore's law can't continue indefinitely because it's a geometric rate of increase that would have processors with virtually infinite speed/cores by the start of the next century.

Tim



If we allow for increasing numbers of multi-cores in exchange for increasing processor speed, I think the end of Moore's law will be market drive. There will be multi-core devices that are cheap and do pretty much whatever anyone would want to do already so why make anything better. Imagine the volume of an iPod filled with multi-cores.
maschoen
QNX Master
 
Posts: 2644
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 5:18 pm

Postby juanplacco » Thu Apr 01, 2010 8:07 pm

The problems are temperature :oops: and the size of an atom. We need a hardware revolution not based in transistors... :P :P :P
juanplacco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:30 pm

Postby Tim » Thu Apr 01, 2010 9:52 pm

maschoen wrote:The only place where you run short is a program that must run linearly and for which there is always a gain for running it faster. I can't think of any right now. There are probably some mathematical problems that work this way.


Doesn't sorting fall into this linear category? The best sort algorithm is Quicksort which works by dividing the number of items into ever smaller groups that themselves get sorted. Now to take advantage of multicores (ie each sub group gets assigned to another core to allow parallel sorting of these sub groups) requires a software rewrite in addition to the hardware core increase. It's not clear that rewrite is happening or is going to be happening except in special software (like 3D Studio Max) designed to benefit from multi-core. In a regular program it's much faster to sort with a single core CPU with faster speed than a multi-core CPU with theoretical faster speeds.

If we allow for increasing numbers of multi-cores in exchange for increasing processor speed, I think the end of Moore's law will be market drive. There will be multi-core devices that are cheap and do pretty much whatever anyone would want to do already so why make anything better. Imagine the volume of an iPod filled with multi-cores.


I don't know about you but I'd be much happer if my iPhone had multi-cores in order to run more than one app at a time :)

We need a hardware revolution not based in transistors...


how about a software revolution based on less piggy code :)

Tim
Tim
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:28 am

Next

Return to Cafe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron