Oh, harsh! The way I see it, inefficient coding creates jobs. If the "biologists" started writing space-efficient and time-efficient code, there would be no need for anyone on this list. Don't bite the hand that feeds :) As for the question that Joe posed, I see a split between CPU-intensive and IO-intensive tasks. Neither CPU-intensive nor IO-intensive tasks are going away any time soon. I agree with Tim that the IO ones are harder to solve. -Ian On Apr 20, 2005, at 7:27 AM, Tim Cutts wrote: > > On 20 Apr 2005, at 2:25 pm, Joe Landman wrote: > >> Hi folks: >> >> Are computational bottlenecks the major problem you are running into >> today? What do you see in the future in terms of rate limiting >> efforts? If you had an "infinitely fast" cluster (like a blue-gene >> from IBM), how would like impact your work/processes? > > The major bottlenecks are based around IO. We have plenty of CPU > grunt. > > Scalable databases and parallel filesystems are what we need to sort > out now. It's no use having infinite amounts of CPU power if you have > to force all the output through a very tiny pipe. > > A lot of this can be solved by programming expertise, but most > scientists aren't interested in coding for scalability, they're only > interested in quickly producing something which produces "the right > answer", whatever that means. > > Having scalable filesystems and databases would allow them to carry on > coding in their current less-than-perfect ways and still maintain some > half-decent performance. > > Tim > > -- > Dr Tim Cutts > Informatics Systems Group, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute > GPG: 1024D/E3134233 FE3D 6C73 BBD6 726A A3F5 860B 3CDD 3F56 E313 4233 > > _______________________________________________ > Bioclusters maillist - Bioclusters at bioinformatics.org > https://bioinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/bioclusters >