archiv~1.txt: Re: SETI-L: Everybody may be afraid & a Answer

Re: SETI-L: Everybody may be afraid & a Answer
Fri, 26 Mar 1999 14:30:53 -0600 (EST)

I realize Moore's law, and while beowulf clusters are not optimized for
SETI, they are optimized for what they do. Even 5 terabytes per star
seems like an amazing amount of data,.,.,I mean I'm not calling them liars
by any stretch, it's just seems to be way to much data.,,

michael bernstein

i could understand a few gig.,.,MAYBE even half a terabyte, but even 5
terabytes? how long on average does it take to scan 1 star?!

On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 wrote:

> In a message dated 3/25/99 8:04:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> writes:
> > I also would like to raise another point. The Seti Institute said that
> > the reason they do not post data is because for each star they scan they
> > accumulate 15 terabytes of data. I don't know how many of you are
> > computer professionals, or even know that much about computers, but that
> > is an extremely ludicrous number.
> You fail to appreciate the power of Moores Law. In other words, we as a
> species are becoming computationally more powerful all the time, at an
> exponential rate of increase. Never say any (put your favorite computing value
> here) is ludicrous. Don't forget, Bill Gates once said that no one would ever
> need more than 640k of memory.
> Anyway, they generate 5 teras, not 15. And they don't store it any longer than
> they need to process it. And processing is done in near real time. Here is the
> link from the Seti Institute describing their data processing rationale:
> > They said all processing is done in
> > realtime. If you can show me a computer that can process 15 terabytes of
> > information into complex search algorithms in the short time they spend to
> > scan each star then I don't know what I'd do.
> Well, your only off by a factor of three. Start looking for something that
> 'you don't know what to do', hehe.
> > It's impossible at this
> > point in time, even with an extremely large cluster to process 15
> > terabytes of data. Moby Dick is approx 200kilobytes in length last time i
> > checked. that makes each star's data 75,000,000 times the size of moby
> > dick, which I realize is not ascii text, but is still a number that is way
> > way off.
> >
> > michael bernstein
> >
> >
> >
> > btw, I've used beowulf clusters on 1terabyte raid systems, and it has
> > taken WEEKS to do certain things. I'm sure the seti algorithms are
> > equally complex.
> Your Beowulf clusters are not optimized for seti work. So the analogy may not
> be so valid.
> I know it sounds incredulous, but personally, I take the Seti Institute at
> their word.
> John Marcus.