<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3199" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left>
<DIV align=left><SPAN class=250542422-20122006>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><?xml:namespace prefix
= st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><?xml:namespace prefix = o
ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT color=#0000ff>Hi
Peter,</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT color=#0000ff> here I wrote
(conceptually) about how an image with One Process Per Instance should
start, work and be written in
disk:</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><A
href="http://www.nabble.com/One-Process-Per-Instance-%28RE%3A-Multy-core-CPUs%29-p13408771.html"><FONT
color=#0000ff>http://www.nabble.com/One-Process-Per-Instance-%28RE%3A-Multy-core-CPUs%29-p13408771.html</FONT></A></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT color=#0000ff> Here I sate some
of why prioritize an idea like this and invokes your attention about
your 1M instances example:</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><A
href="http://www.nabble.com/RE%3A-Multy-core-CPUs-p13406112.html">http://www.nabble.com/RE%3A-Multy-core-CPUs-p13406112.html</A></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT color=#0000ff> You may consider
this option crushed but I consider it more onerous that we has used to but still
valid. In fact I beleive that but I'm convinced that clever VM techniques can do
it usable enough for mosts typical Smalltalk needs. So now
m</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT color=#0000ff>aybe is not valid to real time
sampling high quality sound nor real time ray traycing because of the hardware
but that does dont makes it an invalid
option. </FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT color=#0000ff> For lots of
applications will still be
usable. </FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT color=#0000ff>Remember that cheap or expensive is
subjetive. This model unloads the persons from having to pay the impedance
mismatch by loading machines to pay it so machines had the hard work for us at
that price. It's a trade off that you show that are you're not willing to take.
But I'm very confident that, not being the silver bullet, this has a wide
space of solutions.</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007> <FONT color=#0000ff>In short: you
don't use GemStone/S to sample audio. An by the
way,</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT color=#0000ff> with all the overhead you
cited, how do you think an application like this will perform compared to one
that uses a relational database for persistance? maybe compared to GemStone/S
itself?</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007> <FONT color=#0000ff>Anyway I feel we
reached the limit of the theoretical discussion. Tests will be needed to go
forward. With them maybe VM numbers surprise us and is not that onerous or we
can use lots of known optimizations into it to mitigate the initial
implementation cost. Sadly I'm unable to invest in this now to know where it
leads. </FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007> <FONT color=#0000ff>So I think I'll
hibernate this then. Maybe in 2 or 4 years result that is a convenient approach
to something.</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT color=#0000ff> With a still
valid model but with "wings cutted" by the lack of resources
:)</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007> <FONT color=#0000ff>all the
best!</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT
color=#0000ff>Sebastian</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName> </P><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV align=left><SPAN class=250542422-20122006><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p><SPAN
class=218521523-25102007></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName></SPAN>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2><B>De:</B> squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org
[mailto:squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] <B>En nombre de </B>Peter
William Lount<BR><B>Enviado el:</B> Jueves, 25 de Octubre de 2007
18:08<BR><B>Para:</B> The general-purpose Squeak developers
list<BR><B>Asunto:</B> Re: Multy-core CPUs<BR></FONT><BR></P></DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>Hi,<BR><BR><BR><SPAN class=218521523-25102007><FONT
face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff size=2> ... </FONT></SPAN><SPAN
class=671454420-25102007><BR><BR></SPAN>I recall a counter example of the
million objects was to split the data objects into 10,000 chunks. However,
that's a different problem not the one that I have to deal with. <BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007></SPAN><BR><SPAN
class=671454420-25102007></SPAN><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,255) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAx5oTyKKcHEiH5jLobrYqEMKAAAAQAAAAhozPTNvTZUy+TpA5+5MBtAEAAAAA@seaswork.com
type="cite">
<DIV>Tying an object instance to a particular process makes no sense. If
you did that you'd likely end up with just as many dead locks and other
concurrency problems since you'd now have message sends to the object
being queued up on the processes input queue. Since processes could only
process on message at a time deadlocks can occur - plus all kinds of nasty
problems resulting from the order of messages in the queue. (There is a
similar nasty problem with the GUI event processing in VisualAge Smalltalk
that leads to very difficult to diagnose and comprehend concurrency
problems). It's a rats maze that's best to avoid.<BR><SPAN
class=859282918-25102007> </SPAN><BR>Besides, in some cases an object
with multiple threads could respond to many messages - literally - at the
same time given multiple cores. Why slow down the system by putting all
the messages into a single queue when you don't have to!?<BR><SPAN
class=859282918-25102007></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2>You didn't understand the model I'm talking about.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>That is likely the case. <SPAN class=671454420-25102007><FONT
face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff
size=2>So I ask you</FONT> <FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff
size=2>kindly if you can read my previus emails where I where I have
taken the job of expresing my exploratory thoughts until reached this model
and the speculation about the existence of this model
(consequences). <BR></FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>There are so many emails
in this thread please link to the emails you'd like me to reread. Thanks very
much. <BR><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007></SPAN><BR><SPAN
class=671454420-25102007></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,255) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAx5oTyKKcHEiH5jLobrYqEMKAAAAQAAAAhozPTNvTZUy+TpA5+5MBtAEAAAAA@seaswork.com
type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2>There isn't such a thing as an object with multiple
trheads. That does not exists in this model.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Ok. I got that. <BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAx5oTyKKcHEiH5jLobrYqEMKAAAAQAAAAhozPTNvTZUy+TpA5+5MBtAEAAAAA@seaswork.com
type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2>It does exists one process per instance no more no
less. </FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>I did get that. Even if you only do that logically you've got
serious problems.<SPAN class=671454420-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff
size=2>If you have read where I talk about how to manage with this model N
millon objects with limited hardware</FONT> <FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2>and you still found problems please be my guest to
inform me here because I want to know that as soon as
possible.<BR></FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I know it's possible for
systems like Erlang to have 100,000 virtual processes, aka lightweight
threads, that can be in one real native operating system process or across
many native processes. <BR><BR>Are you saying that you've figured out how to
do that with millions of processes? <BR><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007></SPAN><BR><SPAN
class=671454420-25102007></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,255) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAx5oTyKKcHEiH5jLobrYqEMKAAAAQAAAAhozPTNvTZUy+TpA5+5MBtAEAAAAA@seaswork.com
type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2>I think you're thinking about processes and threads
the same way you know them today. </FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>I can easily see such a scenario working and also breaking all over
the place.<SPAN class=671454420-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff
size=2>Why?</FONT> </SPAN><BR><BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAx5oTyKKcHEiH5jLobrYqEMKAAAAQAAAAhozPTNvTZUy+TpA5+5MBtAEAAAAA@seaswork.com
type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2>Lets see if this helps you to get the idea:
Desambiguation: for this model I'm talking about process not as an OS
process but as a VM light process which we also use to call them
threads.</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Ok.<BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAx5oTyKKcHEiH5jLobrYqEMKAAAAQAAAAhozPTNvTZUy+TpA5+5MBtAEAAAAA@seaswork.com
type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2>So I'm saying that in this model you have only one
process per instance but that process is not a process that can have
threads belonging to it. </FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>ok.<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAx5oTyKKcHEiH5jLobrYqEMKAAAAQAAAAhozPTNvTZUy+TpA5+5MBtAEAAAAA@seaswork.com
type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2>That generates a hell of complexity.
<BR></FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>You lost me there. What complexity?<BR><SPAN
class=671454420-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff
size=2>Does not matter is other model not the one I'm speculating.
(probably one you have imagined before clarifiying the 1:1 object
process thing)</FONT> <BR></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Alan Kay's original work
suggested that each object had a process. There is the logical view and the
idealized view. Then there is the concrete and how to implement things. How
one explains things to end users is often with the idealized view. How one
implements is more often with something that isn't quite the idea. <BR><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007></SPAN><BR><SPAN
class=671454420-25102007></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,255) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAx5oTyKKcHEiH5jLobrYqEMKAAAAQAAAAhozPTNvTZUy+TpA5+5MBtAEAAAAA@seaswork.com
type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2>The process I'm saying it's tied to an instance it's
more close to the process word you know from dictionary plus what you know
what an instance is and with the process implemented by a VM that can
balance it across cores.</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>I didn't understand. Please restate. <SPAN
class=671454420-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff
size=2>I restates that N times in my previus emails being too
long. To give you a clue it's about the double nature I'm saying the
object has. An amalgam between object and process. It's conceptual
indissociability. More on those previus emails.</FONT>
<BR></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Alright I'll have to reread the entire thread
since no one wants to clearly state their pov in one email as I attempt to do
out of courtesy. I don't have time to reread the entire thread today though.
(That's why it is a courtesy to repost - it saves your readers time). <BR><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007></SPAN><BR><SPAN
class=671454420-25102007></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,255) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAx5oTyKKcHEiH5jLobrYqEMKAAAAQAAAAhozPTNvTZUy+TpA5+5MBtAEAAAAA@seaswork.com
type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007></SPAN><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2>I'm not falling in the pitfall of start trying to
parallelize code automagically. This far from it. In fact I think this is
better than that illusion. Every message is guaranteed by VM to reach
it's destination in guaranteed order. Otherwise will be chaos. And we want
an ordered chaos like the one we have now in a Squeak reified
image.</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Yes, squeak is ordered chaos.
;--). <BR><BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAx5oTyKKcHEiH5jLobrYqEMKAAAAQAAAAhozPTNvTZUy+TpA5+5MBtAEAAAAA@seaswork.com
type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2>Clarified that I ask why do you think could be
deadlocks? and what other kind of concurrency problems do you think that
will this model suffer?</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>If a number
of messages are waiting in the input queue of a process that can only
process one message at a time since it's not multi-threaded then those
messages are BLOCKED while in the thread. Now imagine another process with
messages in it's queue that are also BLOCKED since they are waiting in the
queue and only one message can be processed at a time. Now imagine that
process A and process B each have messages that the other needs before it
can proceed but those messages are BLOCKED waiting for processing in the
queues. <BR><BR>This is a real example of what can happen with message
queues. The order isn't guaranteed. Simple concurrency solutions often have
deadlock scenarios. This can occur when objects must synchronize events or
information. As soon as you have multiple threads of execution you've got
problems that need solving regardless of the concurrency model in
place. <BR><BR><SPAN class=671454420-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2> But that can happen right now if you give a bad
use of process in a current Smalltalk. I don't want to solve deadlocks for
anybody using parallelism badly. I just want a Smalltalk that works like
todays but balancing cpu load across cores and scaling to an arbitrary
number of them. All this trhead it's about
that.<BR></FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Yes it can happen now. That's why it's
important to actually learn concurrency control techniques. Books like the
Little Book of Semaphores can help with that learning process. <BR><BR>The
point is that a number of people in this thread are proposing solutions that
seem to claim that these problems magically go away in some utopian manner
with process-based concurrency. All I'm pointing out is that there isn't a
silver bullet or concurrency utopia and now I'm getting flack for pointing out
that non-ignorable reality. So be it. Those that push ahead are often the ones
with many arrows in their back.<BR><BR><SPAN
class=671454420-25102007></SPAN><BR><SPAN class=671454420-25102007></SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,255) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAx5oTyKKcHEiH5jLobrYqEMKAAAAQAAAAhozPTNvTZUy+TpA5+5MBtAEAAAAA@seaswork.com
type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007></SPAN><BR>Tying an object's life time
to the lifetime of a process doesn't make sense since there could be
references to the object all over the place. If the process quits the
object should still be alive IF there are still references to
it.<BR></DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007></SPAN>
<DIV>You'd need to pass around more than references to processes. For if a
process has more than one object you'd not get the resolution you'd need.
No, passing object references around is way better.<BR><SPAN
class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007><SPAN class=859282918-25102007><FONT
face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Yes</FONT> <FONT
face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff size=2>of course there will be. In this
system a process termination is one of two things: A) that instance is
being reclaimed in a garbage collection or B) that instance has been
written to disk in a kind of hibernation that can be reified again on
demand</FONT></SPAN><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT
size=2>.<SPAN class=859282918-25102007> </SPAN><SPAN
class=859282918-25102007>Please refer to my previous post with subject
"One Process Per Instance.." where I talk more about exacly this.
<BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>If all there
is is a one object per process and one process per object - a 1 to 1 mapping
then yes gc would work that way but the 1 to 1 mapping isn't likely to ever
happen given current and future hardware prospects. <BR><BR><SPAN
class=671454420-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff
size=2> But Peter don't lower your guard on that so easy! we know
techniques to administer resources like navegating 10 thousand instances at
the time a 10 gigas image of 10 million objects! don't shoot hope before it
borns! I talk some details I've imagined about this in my "One
Process Per Instance" post.<BR></FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Well then you
must have a radically different meaning of 1 to 1 object to process mapping
than I have or a radically different implementation that I've understood from
your writings. If you can make it work that is all the proof that you need,
isn't it!?<BR><BR><SPAN class=671454420-25102007></SPAN><BR><SPAN
class=671454420-25102007></SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,255) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAx5oTyKKcHEiH5jLobrYqEMKAAAAQAAAAhozPTNvTZUy+TpA5+5MBtAEAAAAA@seaswork.com
type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=859282918-25102007></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><BR>Even if
you considered an object as having it's own "logical" process you'd get
into the queuing problems hinted at above.<BR><SPAN
class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2>Which I dont see and I ask your help to understand if
you still find them after the clarifications made about the
model.</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>See the example above.
<BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAx5oTyKKcHEiH5jLobrYqEMKAAAAQAAAAhozPTNvTZUy+TpA5+5MBtAEAAAAA@seaswork.com
type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007></SPAN><BR>Besides objects in
Smalltalk are really fine grained. The notion that each object would have
it's own thread would require so much thread switching that no current
processor could handle that. It would also be a huge waste of
resources.<BR></DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007></SPAN>
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2>And what do you think was going out of the mouths of
criticizers of the initiatives like the park place team had in 1970's
making a Smalltalk with the price of the CPU's and RAM at that time?
that VM's are a smart efficient use of
resources?</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>That's not really relevant. If you want to build that please go
ahead - please don't let me stop you, that's the last thing I'd want. I wish
you luck. I get to play with current hardware and hardware that's coming
down the pipe such as the Tile-64 or the newest GPUs when they are available
to the wider market.<BR><SPAN class=671454420-25102007><FONT
face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff
size=2>We all have to use cheap hardware. Please (re)think about what I said
about administering hardware resources over this model.</FONT>
<BR></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007></SPAN><BR><SPAN
class=671454420-25102007></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,255) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAx5oTyKKcHEiH5jLobrYqEMKAAAAQAAAAhozPTNvTZUy+TpA5+5MBtAEAAAAA@seaswork.com
type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2>So I copy paste myself: "<SPAN
class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff size=2>I
don't give credit to unfounded apriorisms. It deserves to be proven that
does not work. Anyway let's just assume that may be too much for state of
the art hardware in common computers in year 2007. What about in 2009?
what about in 2012?"</FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>Well just get out your calculator. There is an overhead to a thread
or process in bytes. Say 512 bytes per thread plus it's stack. There is the
number of objects. Say 1 million for a medium to small image. Now multiply
those and you get 1/2 gigabyte. Oh, we forgot the stack space and the memory
for the objects themselves. Add a multiplier for that, say 8 and you get 4
gigabytes. Oh, wait we forgot that the stack is kind weird since as each
message send that isn't to self must be an interprocess or interthread
message send you've got some weirdness going on let along all the thread
context switching for each message send that occurs. Then you've got to add
more for who knows what... the list could go on for quite a bit. It's just
mind boggling. <BR><SPAN class=671454420-25102007><FONT
face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff
size=2>I just can't beleive we really can't find clever ways of <SPAN
class=671454420-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff
size=2>adminiter resources to the point in which this becomes acceptable.
<BR></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Each thread needs a
stack, a stored set of registers. That's at least two four kilobyte memory
pages (one for the stack and one for the registers) with current hardware
assuming your thread is mapped to a real processor thread of execution at some
point. The two pages are there so that you can have the processor detect if
the stack grows beyond it's four kilobyte page. Now you could pack them into
one page when it's not being executed but that would increase your context
switch time to pack and unpack. If you avoid that and simply use the same page
for both then you're risking having your stack overwrite memory used for the
process/thread which would be unsafe multi-threading.<BR><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff
size=2><SPAN class=671454420-25102007></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>Maybe some hardware
designers will figure it out. <BR><BR>However, there is still the worst
pitfall of the 1 to 1 mapping of process to object: that is the overhead of
each message send to another object would require a thread context switch!
That's is inescapably huge.<BR><BR><BR><SPAN class=671454420-25102007><FONT
face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=671454420-25102007></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,255) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007></SPAN><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT><BR>Simply put current cpu architectures are simply not
designed for that approach. Heck they are even highly incompatible with
dynamic message passing since they favor static code in terms of
optimizations. <BR><BR><SPAN class=671454420-25102007><FONT
face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff size=2> Yes that happens with
machines based on mathematic models like the boolean model. It injects an
inpedance mismatch between the conceptual modeling and the virtual modeling.
<BR><BR></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAx5oTyKKcHEiH5jLobrYqEMKAAAAQAAAAhozPTNvTZUy+TpA5+5MBtAEAAAAA@seaswork.com
type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007></SPAN><BR>Again, one solution does
not fit all problems - if it did programming would be easier.<BR><SPAN
class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2>But programming should have to be easier.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I concur, whenever it's possible to do
so. But it also shouldn't ignore the hard problems either. <BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAx5oTyKKcHEiH5jLobrYqEMKAAAAQAAAAhozPTNvTZUy+TpA5+5MBtAEAAAAA@seaswork.com
type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2>Smalltalk made it easier in a lot of aspects.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Sure I concur. That's why I am working
here in this group spending time (is money) on these emails. <BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAx5oTyKKcHEiH5jLobrYqEMKAAAAQAAAAhozPTNvTZUy+TpA5+5MBtAEAAAAA@seaswork.com
type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2>Listen.. I'm not a naif silver bullet purchaser nor a
faithful person. I'm a critic Smalltalker that thinks he gets the point
about OOP and tries to find solutions to surpass the multicore crisis by
getting an empowered system not consoling itself with a weaker one.
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2><BR></FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I do get that
about you. <BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAx5oTyKKcHEiH5jLobrYqEMKAAAAQAAAAhozPTNvTZUy+TpA5+5MBtAEAAAAA@seaswork.com
type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN class=859282918-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff size=2>Peter please try to forget about how systems are made
and think in how you want to make
them.</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><FONT
face="Trebuchet MS"></FONT></FONT></FONT>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><FONT
face="Trebuchet MS"><BR></FONT></FONT></FONT>I do think about how I want to
make them. However to make them I have no choice but to consider how to
actually build them using existing technologies and the coming future
technologies. <BR><BR>Currently we have 2-core and 4-core processors as the
mainstream with 3-core and 8-core coming to a computer store near you. We
have the current crop of GPUs from NVidia that have 128 processing units
that can be programmed in a variant of C for some general purpose program
tasks using a SIMD (single instruction multiple data) format - very useful
for those number crunching applications like graphics, cryptology and
numeric analysis to name just a few. We also have the general purpose
networked Tile-64 coming - lots of general purpose compute power with an
equal amount of scalable networked IO power - very impressive. Intel even
has a prototype with 80-cores that is similar. Intel also has it's awesomely
impressive Itanium processor with instruction level parallelism as well as
multiple cores - just wait till that's a 128 core beastie. Please there is
hardware that we likely don't know about or that hasn't been invented yet.
Please bring it on!!!<BR><BR>The bigger problem is that in order to build
real systems I need to think about how they are constructed. <BR><BR>So yes,
I want easy parallel computing but it's just a harsh reality that
concurrency, synchronization, distributed processing, and other advanced
topics are not always easy or possible to simplify as much as we try to want
them to be. That is the nature of computers. <BR><BR>Sorry for being a
visionary-realist. Sorry if I've sounded like the critic. I don't mean to be
the critic that kills your dreams - if I've done that I apologize. I've
simply meant to be the realist who informs the visionary that certain
adjustments are needed.<BR><BR>All the best,<BR><BR>Peter<BR><BR><SPAN
class=671454420-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff
size=2> Please take your time to think about what I've stated of
administering resources being possible to manage load of millions of
instances by a swarm of a few at the time. And don't be sorry of anything. I
love criticism. Our culture need tons of criticism to be stronger. It's the
only way we can unistall deprecated or obsolete ideas. You are helping here.
If I really dreaming an this don't work I want that <BR>dream to be kill now
so I can spend my time in something better. That
helps.<BR></FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Well having loads of millions
of instances managed by a swarm of them at once is what I was assuming. In
fact Linux does this (well for thousands not millions anyway). It turns out
that Intel's X86/IA32 architecture can only handle 4096 threads in hardware.
What Linux did was virtualize them so that only one hardware thread was used
for the active thread (per core I would assume). This allowed Linux to avoid
the glass ceiling of 4096 threads. However, there are limits due to the
overhead of context switching time and the overhead of space that each thread
- even with a minimal stack as would be the case with the model you are
proposing might have. It's just too onerous for practical use. <BR><BR>Unless
you are doing something radically different that I don't understand that is.
<BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007></SPAN><BR><SPAN
class=671454420-25102007></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,255) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN></DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,255) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><SPAN
class=671454420-25102007></SPAN>
<DIV><SPAN class=671454420-25102007></SPAN><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=671454420-25102007> By </SPAN><SPAN
class=671454420-25102007> now this model it's just getting
stronger. Please try to get it down !!!
:)))<BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I though I crushed
it already!!! ;--)<BR><BR>Certainly until you can provide a means for it to
handle the one million data objects across 10,000 processes with edits going
to the 10,000 processes plus partial object graph seeding (and any object on
demand) to them and end up with one and a half million output objects with the
total number of interconnections increased by 70% I'll consider it crushed.
;--)<BR><BR>Forward to the future - to infinity and beyond with real
hardware!<BR><BR>Cheers,<BR><BR>Peter<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=671454420-25102007></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><BR><FONT
face="Trebuchet MS"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=671454420-25102007></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,255) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>