Apr 272009
 

I’ve run the first realistic tests of the kind of computation that I am planning to perform on my new machine with the GPU “supercomputer” card. Here is a “before” picture:

Self-gravitating star cluster on the CPU

Self-gravitating star cluster on the CPU

And now, the exact same program running on the GPU:

Self-gravitating star cluster on the GPU

Self-gravitating star cluster on the GPU

I’d say that’s quite an improvement. To say the least.

The calculation in this case computed the self-gravitational forces in a cluster of 10,000 stars… it seems that the GPU can perform this computation at least 20 times a second. That’s quite remarkable.

 Posted by at 6:13 pm
Apr 242009
 

I built a new computer. It is a fairly decent computer, but what makes it special is its video card: it is a card that, in addition to producing graphics, can also be used for numerical computations.

The raw speed of the card is one TFLOP. That is, one trillion (single-precision) floating-point instructions per second.

It wasn’t that long ago that not even the world’s biggest supercomputer came even close to this kind of computing power.

I wonder how many such GPU cards are presently being used in places like Iran’s or North Korea’s weapons laboratories. And it’s not like it’s easy to ban their exports to such countries… the card, while bearing the ATI/AMD logo, was nonetheless manufactured in China.

 Posted by at 11:51 am
Mar 312009
 

Folks working on quantum computers are busy trying to make sure that entangled states remain entangled, because decoherence is death for a quantum computation. But now, Gross et al. showed that too much entanglement may not be a good thing: it can result in quantum computers that offer no improvements in efficiency over conventional computers.

 Posted by at 12:04 am
Mar 282009
 

Ever since I became the unfortunate owner of a new laptop (rather nice in most respects, actually) that requires Vista, I’ve been cursing the programmers in Redmond.

One prevailing mystery was this: if my laptop is in Sleep/Hibernation for more than a few hours, why does it take literally forever for it to wake up? And why is there is constant disk activity while I wait for it to respond?

It seems that I may have found the answer. It’s the blasted Superfetch service in Vista, ostensibly designed to help speed up the launching of applications. Perhaps it does that… but on a laptop, it also does many other things, none of them pleasant. It seems that the best thing to do is to disable the Superfetch service once and for all, and call it a bad memory.

 Posted by at 11:26 am
Feb 152009
 

Here’s a nice plot of yesterday’s power outage, courtesy of my server:

Power on Feb 14, 2009

Power on Feb 14, 2009

Interesting how the capacity drop and the recharge curve are both perfectly linear. Makes me wonder how accurate these curves are… do they really represent measured values or just a simplistic guess by software?

On the other hand, both UPSs ran fine for over half an hour, one supplying a server and networking equipment, another supplying a workstation, monitor, and some peripherals. So I really have no cause to complain.

 Posted by at 5:41 pm
Feb 142009
 

Murphy’s law works well on battery power, too.

Not FIVE SECONDS after I finished shutting down my workstation and my main server, the power came back on. If it only came back just a minute earlier, I’d have been able to avoid the shutdown altogether.

Well, at least the power is back on. I cannot help but notice that ever since the 2003 blackout, power has been a great deal less reliable here than before. Or perhaps it was always like this, I just perceive it differently?

A funny thing happened during the shutdown of my workstation, by the way. I executed a manual shutdown, which in turn was interrupted by the UPS that initiated a hibernation. So the machine went to hibernate. When I powered it back on, it came out of hibernation and promptly proceeded to complete the previously initiated shutdown. Computers can be so literal-minded!

 Posted by at 4:03 pm
Feb 062009
 

I’m thinking about quantum computers today.

Quantum computers are supposed to be “better” than ordinary digital computers in that they’re able to solve, in polynomial time, many problems that an ordinary digital computer can only solve in exponential time. This has enormous practical implications: notably, many cryptographic methods are based on the fact that there are mathematical problems that can only be solved in exponential time, rendering it impractical to break an encryption key by computer using any “brute force” method. However, if a quantum computer could solve the same problem in polynomial time, a “brute force” method may be practical.

But the thing is, quantum computers are not exactly unique in this respect. Any good old analog computer from the 1950s can also solve the same problems in polynomial time. At least, in principle.

And that’s the operative phrase here: in principle. An analog computer, which represents data in the form of continuous quantities such as lengths, currents, voltages, angles, etc., is limited by its accuracy: even the best analog computer rarely has an accuracy better than one part in a thousand. Not exactly helpful when you’re trying to factorize 1000-digit numbers, for instance.

A quantum computer also represents data in the form of a continuous quantity: the (phase of the) wave function. Like an analog computer, a quantum computer is also limited in accuracy: this limitation is known as decoherence, when the wave function collapses into one of its eigenstates, as if a measurement had been performed.

So why bother with quantum computers, then? Simple: it is widely believed that it is possible to restore coherence in a quantum computer. If this is indeed possible, then a quantum computer is like an analog computer on steroids: any intermediate calculations could be carried out to arbitrary precision, only the final measurement (i.e., reading out the result) would be subject to a classical measurement error, which is not really a big issue when the final result, for instance, is a yes/no type result.

So that’s what quantum computing boils down to: “redundant qubits” that can ensure that coherence is maintained throughout a calculation. Many think that this can be done… I remain somewhat skeptical.

 Posted by at 7:38 pm
Jan 252009
 

Often, I wondered: who designed the graphical elements, like the fonts and icons that appear on my computer screen?

Finally, I know the name of one of these people. She is Susan Kare, and her work appeared in the original Macintosh, Windows 3.0, OS/2, even Facebook. I came across her name as I was reading about the 25th anniversary of the Macintosh and clicked a link that took me to a 12-year old article from The New York Times that Ms. Kare has on her Web site.

 Posted by at 3:04 pm
Jan 102009
 

I am test driving Windows 7. Some rough edges (it’s a beta, after all) but I already like it more than I liked Vista. If only Microsoft saw the light and dropped Activation, I might even consider recommending it. One of these days, software companies will realize that penalizing legitimate users is not the right way to fight piracy, but that day has not come yet…

 Posted by at 3:28 am
Jan 072009
 

Here’s an article worthy of a bookmark:

http://peltiertech.com/Excel/Charts/XYAreaChart2.html

It offers a way to produce a chart in Microsoft Excel much like this one:

Filled XY area chart

Filled XY area chart

This chart is from something I’m working on, an attempt to test gravitational theories against galaxy survey data.

The link above also comes with a warning: the discussed technique doesn’t work with Excel 2007, due to a (presumably unintentional) change in Excel’s handling of certain complex charts. A pity, but it is also a good example why I am trying to maintain my immunity against chronic upgrade-itis. Two decades ago upgrades were important because they fixed severe bugs and offered serious usability improvements. But today? Why on Earth would I want to upgrade to Office 2007 when Office 2003 does everything I need and more, just so that I can re-learn its user interface? Or make Microsoft richer?

 Posted by at 3:51 pm
Jan 022009
 

As a contributor to Maxima, I occasionally receive requests from students to fill out surveys. I got one today, and after completing it, felt obliged to add the following comment, which really applies to most such surveys that I’ve seen:

You seem to be concentrating on things like prestige, reputation, stuff like that that I have no interest in and certainly play no role in my decision to work on an open source project. Simply put, the projects I work on I work on because of what they DO, not because they are open source or not. It’s not a self-serving activity… I no more think of it as “programming” as I think, say, of repairing my computer as “screwdrivering”. Programming (or using a screwdriver) is not the goal, but the means to reach a goal.

I work on Maxima because I need it for my research, because its tensor algebra packages were broken and I was able to repair and maintain them, because I need the result, because by participating I can help ensure that the package remains reliable and useful… what others think of me is irrelevant. I left your last question (ranking roles by prestige) unanswered for this reason… you might as well have asked me to rank them by color.

 Posted by at 5:00 pm
Jan 012009
 

A full nine years after the Y2K bug was to end civilization as we know it, it appears that Microsoft has yet to discover leap years. It seems that many of their Zune music players died a premature death yesterday (though they’re expected to come back to life today) because they were not prepared to deal with years that are 366 days in length.

Not only is this a remarkable case of sloppy programming and quality control, it also highlights why devices with digital rights management are such a bad idea. They’re designed not to serve you, the person who owns the devices and pays for the content played on it, but to serve third party content providers who view you as the enemy. And you actually pay good money for such garbage?

This is why I have yet to purchase an iPod, Zune, or indeed, any other device or software that is designed to police my non-existent file sharing habits.

 Posted by at 3:23 pm
Dec 292008
 

Sometimes, programmers do physics, for better or for worse. Sometimes, physicists do programming, and the result is not always disastrous, sometimes quite the contrary. Bruce Allen, for instance, is a gravitational physicist who developed an extremely useful set of programs for Linux, allowing one to monitor the health status of a hard drive using the drive’s SMART (Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology) capabilities. He certainly needed it… his cluster has several hundred disk drives in operation. I only have a few, but nevertheless it is reassuring to know that they’ll send me an e-mail, presumably before a catastrophic failure wipes out all my data.

Which of course can still happen. I’ve seen hard drives die a sudden death, with no advance warning whatsoever, becoming an expensive but useless boat anchor.

 Posted by at 4:18 pm
Dec 192008
 

Sad news today: at the age of 76, Majel Roddenberry, aka. Nurse Christine Chapel from Star Trek and Lwaxana Troi from Star Trek: TNG, has passed away today. My she rest in peace.

Her husband, Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, passed away over 17 years ago, on October 24, 1991. That date is memorable to me for another reason: it was on the morning of that day that I became a wizard of Richard Bartle’s classic multiplayer computer game, MUD (Multi-User Dungeon), aka British Legends, a game that I have ported to modern 32-bit platforms nearly a decade later and that I have been hosting ever since.

 Posted by at 1:27 am
Dec 172008
 

… two days and several scraped fingers later (after I also lost, no doubt, many braincells to aggravation, not to mention hours of useful operating time of my heart muscle measured by a number considerably greater than the 48 or so that have elapsed since I first discovered that my computer is in trouble) I am finally back in business. All because of a bleeping 10 cent capacitor. But before I complain too loud, I quickly remind myself that during these 48 hours or so, tens if not hundreds of thousands (or millions?) of people around the world were killed, died of starvation, lost their most loved ones, lost their freedom, lost their possessions, you name it… and I am complaining because I had to replace a stupid motherboard and bring my computer back to life?

No, I am not complaining. Still, the last two days were a time I could have done without.

 Posted by at 2:28 pm
Dec 162008
 

That’s all it took. One faulty capacitor, worth about 10 cents, to put my computer out of commission for nearly two days.

The capacitor in question sits on the motherboard and, judging by its placement, it regulates power to the main I/O chip (which explains why, among other things, the failing motherboard had trouble accessing disks.)

Other than this, my experience qualifies as a comedy of errors. After replacing the motherboard with an identical model, the system didn’t boot; it turned out that I inserted the processor incorrectly, bending (but fortunately, not breaking!) some of its pins. Then I found out that the BIOS of the replacement motherboard, which I purchased second-hand, was password locked. After I reset the BIOS, the system didn’t boot at all, it turned out it needed a PCI graphics card to come back to life. Then, the operating system didn’t boot… it turned out that the partition table and boot sector was damaged on the hard drives. Meanwhile, the floppy drive in this machine died, just when I needed it to boot from a Windows XP CD (extra drivers needed for the RAID controller in my computer come on a floppy.)

But now, the system is rebuilding the RAID mirror, and when that’s done, I’ll reconnect everything and try to resume where I left off two nights ago. Groan.

Oh, but I forgot: I also need to upgrade this motherboard’s BIOS, to ensure that it recognizes the dual-core CPU (which it presently doesn’t).

Which reminds me, I’ve been using this motherboard for years, and it’s been working well (apart from a failing chip fan and now, this failing capacitor.) But when I tried to install VISTA on a test machine with the same motherboard, VISTA didn’t work in its “enhanced” AERO mode… or, it did, but only recognizing one CPU core. According to ATI, it’s NVIDIA’s fault, as their AGP implementation is not fully multiprocessor compatible and VISTA has problems with that. But, I ask naively… how come XP worked so well on this motherboard for years? AERO may be pretty, but it’s still just bits that are being moved between motherboard and graphics card, is it not?

 Posted by at 9:23 pm
Dec 152008
 

What a bloody joyful day. My main computer is dead this morning. It now even fails to boot. Annoyingly, I don’t have any external SATA enclosures that would allow me to hook one of its drives up to another computer to check for signs of trouble, verify data integrity, and last but not least, make a backup (my last backup is a few days old.) So it’s a trip to the nearest computer store. And once I’m done, my main computer will still be dead, it’s just that I’ll no longer need to worry about what was stored on it (except for the numerous applications, configuration settings, etc…) This is NOT going to be a fun day. Miserable outside, too.

 Posted by at 3:10 pm
Dec 112008
 

Yes, they are nice. I spent several hours (!) today on the phone with Microsoft, and they really tried to help. In the end, my issue with installing KB958624 remains unresolved but they acknowledged the problem, suggested meaningful ways to deal with it, and promised that it will be researched and that I will be notified.

More importantly, they listened to my comments concerning Activation. This young, very polite engineer from India with impeccable English listened intently and took notes, appreciating my basic concern: Activation (and copy protection in general) will not stop piracy, but it alienates a company’s best friends, namely its paying customers.

 Posted by at 1:34 am
Dec 102008
 

Microsoft is really pissing me off these days. While necessary, their updates suck.

I’m restarting a VISTA machine about the seventeenth time already, because if I try to install all available updates, all of them fail with an undocumented error, even though I can install them one-by-one.

I’ve installed several updates on an XP laptop, and four of them failed; I tried again, then they succeeded. No apparent reason for the difference.

I’ve installed a bunch of updates on another XP machine, but a few were left out. I installed those, too (Root Certificates and Office 2007 Help updates.) Windows didn’t ask for a restart, but the browser went half-dead afterwards anyhow, so I had to restart.

Meanwhile, I’ve just restarted that VISTA machine again.

You’d think that after all these years, Microsoft would be better at this. But they aren’t. One of these days, they’re going to release a patch that will shut down three hundred million computers around the world and cause more economic damage than the current recession. Then, they’ll call it “behavior by design” and charge us more for support.

Update: I’ve narrowed down the problem to a single update, KB958624. It fails to complete installation after reboot, and upon this failure, the system reverts other updates as well. I have attempted to contact Microsoft about this using their Web based e-mail form; I dutifully completed all the requisite fields, only to be informed after I clicked the last Continue that the requested page is not available. Congratulations, Microsoft, for a professional job well done.

 Posted by at 2:55 am
Nov 272008
 

Like other software, this Web logging software, WordPress, also needs to be updated from time to time. It appears that my attempt to update it just now to version 2.6.5 was successful.

 Posted by at 7:08 pm