Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "P. Steele" <P.C.Steele@*********.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Multitasking
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 16:49:40 BST
>>>>>>If a decker in the 21st century can't write some multitasking code
to
control his/her cyberware then thats no decker. (16:48/05.10.92)<<<<<<


----- The Powerhouse
Message no. 2
From: Dark Elf <VESPOSIT@****.SUNYSB.EDU>
Subject: Multitasking
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 14:49:31 EDT
The way multitasking is performed in the real world is by
time sharing between several processes. The "current" process is given a
set amount of time (called a quantum) in which to run. When the quantum runs
out, or the processes is interrupted from an external source, or has to wait
for some time-consuming action (such as i/o), the process is suspended, and
the next process is swapped into an active state.
While this occurs at a very fast rate (33megahertz + in 1992)
each process will run slower (to some degree) than if it was single tasked.
(Even in a multiple CPU system, there is overhead for CPU synchronization and
management). Now all this occurs so fast in modern compuing systems that
you usually will not notice any change in speed from a real-time standpoint.
SR technology is well advanced of current tech. Multitasking systems
are everyday (any cyberdeck runs three persona processes, and runs an
additional process for each utility in use). I would have to reason though,
that multitasked cyber personas (using the encephelon/dedicated SPU scheme)
would suffer some reaction decrease. Remeber, the matrix is not really a
real time situation. The programs you are fighting (IC) are running on very
big machines that probably have an SPU as powerful as any CPU dedicated for
a process as complex as IC. Now this means that every nano-second is vitally
important when fighting these killer processes. Now, keep in mind that a
cyberspace persona is already a multitasked process, that is very complicated.
(Though I can't imagine how a persona program would work, it may even involve
more detailed multitasking than I'm assuming). I would have to put an across
the boards reaction penalty of -1 or -2 to all processes running (I suppose
making the exact penalty dependant on the level of the encephalon and the
number of personas running would be a better idea, but I don't have the stats
for the equipment now).
Another point: Real life multitasking systems assign priorities to
various processes. A process with a higher priority is more likely to have CPU
time than one of lower priorities. Now, there is no reason why this cannot be
applied to multi-decking. Suppose you are running 5 decks, and have a penalty
of -1 reaction to each. Now this gives a total penalty of -5 when you add
all the penalties together. This can be re-organized into a system of
priority points. To keep it simple, we'll define 0 to be the highest priotity
and 1 to be the next highest, 2 the next etc... So that a higher number means
a lower priority. Back to the 5 processes at -1 each example, total the
penaltie for all processes and take the absolute value to get the number of
priority points for the multitasking job. (in this case we have a total
penalty of -5, giving 5 priority points). Now, distribute the priority points
among all the processes (in our example: process P1 gets priority 2, P2 gets
1, P3 gets 1, P4 gets 1, and P5 gets 0) Now since a lower # means higher
priority, each point given to a process equates to a -1 reaction penalty.
(so in our example P1 has -2, P2-P4 has -1, and P5 has -0). Thus you can
decide which persona has a more important task to do, and allow it to run
more efficiently. The cost for this is that one or more other processes have
to run slower.

Can someone please send me stats for the encephalon so I can come up
with a system for assigning base penalties (I'll post a table to the
list for calculating base priorities).

>>>>>>>[ A rather ambitious fellow decker friend of mine
tried a multi-
tasking stunt using jury rigged equipment of his own design
before the encephelon was perfected. He sent 4 priority 1
processes out to several different mainframes in corptown.
Too bad all four of him got in scraps with four different
black IC's, he was lucky to make it out alive, but most of
his gear was fried, and he's been slightly schizophrenic
lately too...]<<<<<<<<<
--Dark Elf <LTG:WARNING TIMESTAMP/ADDRESS STAMP DELETED,
MESSAGE MAY BE UNDELIVERABLE>

>>>>>>>>[ That's for shure, multi-decking is dangerous
enough now, his
multitasking slave unit must have caused some subtle brain
damage because it couldn't handle the simsense feedback from
four units at once. It would have probably driven him schizo
without the black IC! ]<<<<<<<<<<
--Dark Elf v2.0 <LTG:WARNING TIMESTAMP/ADDRESS STAMP
DELETED, MESSAGE MAY BE UNDELIVERABLE>
Message no. 3
From: Robert Hayden <rahayden@*****.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU>
Subject: Multitasking
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 19:54:06 CET
Of course, I have to argue with some of Dark Elf's thoughts on
multi-tasking and how it should be handled in the game.

His technical decription is fine with me and I really won't take issue
with it.

Now, before we go any farther, my original issue was not the number of
decks a person could operate, but the number of DATAJACKS, regardless of
what they were doing. The fact that they might all be decking is immaterial.

Anyway, here are my suggestions:

The I/O SPU must be located between the datajack and the encephalon,
meaning that it would have to be mounted in the body (costing essence).
It only makes since that the SPU would have to sort the data to the proper
memory buffer AFTER it had come through the datajack. Mounting the SPU in
the deck is pointless.

Same with dedicated process memory. The memory would ahve to be installed
in the head to act as the FIFO buffer between the SPU and the encephalon.
Yes, this costs essence, but such is the price of multitasking.



Flowchart:

datajack1 <=> I/O SPU 1 <=> FIFO Buffer1 <=> |-------------------|
. . . | Encephalon |
. . . | |
datajackN <=> I/O SPU N <=> FIFO BufferN <=> |-------------------|



An encephalon can handle the number of datajacks equal to LEVEL +1. In
order for the entire system to be syncronized correctly, all of the
datajacks must be of the same level. In addition, all of the SPUs must
also match (for example, a level 2 encephalon with 3 level 4 datajacks and
3 level 1 I/O SPUs). In addition, each datajack above 1 must have a
dedicated memory buffer of 50 mp (4 datajacks would require 150 mp of memory).

NOTE: the use of only 1 datajack with an encephalon does not REQUIRE an
I/O SPU as the Encephalon is sufficiently powered to handle one
datastream. But 2 or more datajacks require ALL datajacks to have an I/O
SPU to avoid data clashes.


Operating multiple datajacks can become tasking for the encephalon's CPU.
This is reflected in a reaction penalty for operations performed with all
of the active datajacks. Consult the table below:

Encephalon Level # of active datajacks
1 2 3 4 5

1 0 -1 -- -- --
2 0 -1 -2 -- --
3 0 -1 -2 -3 --
4 0 -1 -1 -2 -3

The installation of a MATH SPU equal to or greater than the level of the
encephalon will decrease the overhead some. This is reflected by lowering
the reaction penalties of the active datajacks by one. A MATH SPU will
not bestow any bonuses.



>>>>>{This is a classy setup, let me tell you. I once knew a rigger who
had three datajacks. Was able to plug himself into his car and drive,
fire the car's guns, and control a flying drone all at the same time with
no apparent loss of control. It's not JUST for deckers.}<<<<<
-- Joyride <13:18:36/10-10-52>

>>>>>{Don't forget that an encephalon can multi-task real-world things
too. I knew a street sam that had a Level 2 encephalon installed.
Coupled with his targeting computer, he would be able to fire a gun in
each hand with pinpoint accuracy at DIFFERENT targets. He was a real mean
bastard in a fight.}<<<<<
-- Trog the Gnome <13:21:54/10-10-52>

>>>>>{Was? What happened to him?}<<<<<
-- Datajerk <13:22:38/10-10-52>

>>>>>{Well, he ran out of bullets...}<<<<<
-- Trog the Gnome <13:22:59/10-10-52>

>>>>>{The biggest problem I see with this system is the fact that it is
not very essence friendly. I mean, if you want a Level 4 Encephalon, 5
level 4 datajacks, 5 level 4 I/O SPUs, a level 4 MATH SPU, and 200 MP of
memory, you are looking at 5.16 points of essence!!!!!!! Who in their
right mind would do something like that?}<<<<
-- Joyride <13:27:12/10-10-52>

>>>>>{I would.}<<<<<
-- Datajerk <13:28:21/10-10-52>

>>>>>{Figures. Where this really pays off is that you can have one person
working on five computer projects at once. I've heard of a bunch of corps
giving their wage-slaves level 4 systems in order to increase
productivity. It isn't very cheap, but it really pays off in the end.
Deckers can also make good use of this system. I know a gal who
usually runs with three decks. Each of the personas has a specialty. One
can fight real well, one is the master data-gatherer, another sleazes and
scans. Remarkable setup. And each of the personas of course use the same
memory for utilities, dramatically cutting down on the amount of data
being moved around. Even Black IC have problems fighting off three
deckers at once. Really remarkable.}<<<<<
-- Fastjack <13:41:46/10-10-52>

>>>>>{Christ, Fastjack. You sound like you are in
love.}<<<<<
-- The Smiling Bandit <Strikes again!/Ha-Ha-Ha>

>>>>>{Well, just don't tell anyone.}<<<<<
-- Fastjack <13:43:04/10-10-52>

>>>>>{I heard that, Fastjack. Dinner! My place! Tonight! Eight
o'clock! Don't you dare be late!}<<<<<
-- CyberGal <13:45:22/10-10-52>

>>>>>{Hmm. A woman who can do three things at once, eh? Kinda boggles
the imagination if you let it.}<<<<<
-- The Smiling Bandit <Strikes again!/Ha-Ha-Ha>

>>>>>{Shut up, Smilie.}<<<<<
-- Fastjack {13:47:08/10-10-52>




=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Robert Hayden | Black holes result | My views do not
rahayden@*****.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU | from God dividing the | reflect the views
AQ650@*********.FREENET.EDU | universe by zero | of my employer.
Message no. 4
From: PLUM9349@********.BITNET
Subject: multitasking
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 92 15:40:00 EST
Date sent: 21-OCT-1992 15:37:47
>From: IN%"90824840@***.UWPLATT.EDU" 7-OCT-1992 23:36:30.02
>To: IN%"DEPO4807@********.BITNET" "Todd T. Depole",
IN%"PLUM9349@********.B
ITNET" "JASON PLUMADORE"
>CC:
>Subj: Dem Encephelons
>
>Received: from ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu (MAILER_L@****) by splava.cc.plattsburgh.edu
> (PMDF #12405) id <01GPOOFETI4W95QW11@******.cc.plattsburgh.edu>; Wed,
> 7 Oct 1992 23:36 EST
>Received: by UBVM (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 9843; Wed, 07 Oct 92 23:35:10 EDT
>Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 22:25:00 CST
>From: 90824840@***.UWPLATT.EDU
>Subject: Dem Encephelons
>Sender: Discussion of the Fantasy game ShadowRun <SHADOWRN@*****.BITNET>
>To: "Todd T. Depole" <DEPO4807@********.BITNET>,
> JASON PLUMADORE <PLUM9349@********.BITNET>
>Reply-to: 90824840@***.UWPLATT.EDU
>Message-id: <01GPOOFETI4W95QW11@******.cc.plattsburgh.edu>
>X-Envelope-to: DEPO4807, PLUM9349
>
>--
>Not to be flamin' opinions, :) but with these "multitasking" ideas usin'
>an encephelon you could extend this into some guy firing two guns at once
>without penalty, usin' two swords at once w/o penalty, sword and gun, maybe
>even decking and shootin' at the same time... decking and rigging at the
>same time...
>If the character was doin' these multiple activities, maybe a modifier per
>extra activity on each thing he was doing (i.e. 3 activities == +2 on all
>skill rolls or more ). Also limit the number of activites by the
>encephelon rating or make it no more than 2 or 3. Maybe a number of
>activities equal to it's ratin'.... no bonus at R1 and then extras..
>
>Comments welcome (like I could stop 'em) :)
>
>
> -Storm
> 90824840@***.uwplatt.edu
>
>>>>>....or castin 3 different spells while firin' an AVM
or...<<<<

I agree totally with Storm...The idea of multitasking in the maxtrix would
get totally blown out of proportion with the gaming world and even so it
seems to make things a bit too easy. Don't you think????

Lightning

<< Magic is a drug, it can create, kill or produce many unwanted effects.
The more you use it the more dependant on it you get. >>
Message no. 5
From: Robert Hayden <rahayden@*****.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU>
Subject: Re: multitasking
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 92 21:00:43 CET
Whoa, I thought this subject died a long time ago...

It depends on the players. If they players are power hungry part-time
ADND players, then you are looking at monty haul again.

If they are resourceful and LOGICAL, you will have an excitng new technology.

Everyone complains about something upsetting game balance. God I hate
those words.

THe purpose of cyberwear is to upset the balance. The purpose of magic is
to upset the balance. Anything that can give you an edge and keep you
alive is a welcome improvement.

Vincent and I have most of the concepts regarding multitasking worked out
and once we get it finished, we will submit it to the NAGEE.

Perhaps one thing hasn't been noticed is that Multitasking isn't cheap at
all. If you want to control 5 decks, you need a Level 4 Encephalon (115k
/ 1.75 essence), 5 datajacks (lets ssay level 4 for maximum thru-put) (20k
/ 1.25 essence), 5 I/O SPUs (lets say level 4) (112.5k / 1.25 essence),
200 MP (minimum) of memory (30k / .667 essence), and realistically a level
4 MATH SPU (23k / .25 essence).

Total Cost:
300,500 nuyen
5.167 essence

That is a hell of a sacrifice to make and not many people will be maxing
out like that.

Technology improves logorithmically. We can multitask on computers now,
why can't we do it in 50 years? You have to think of computers
differently than you do now. Computers of 2052 are not just like
computers of 1992 with an improved interface. They are at least thousands
of times more powerful ccapable of doing things we can only dream about
now.

Does it upset the balance? A little, or at least it deals everyone a new
hand. But that is the purpose of tech, to change the odds...to make the
man better.


>> Robert Hayden | rahayden@*****.weeg.uiowa.edu | aq650@****.INS.CWRU.Edu <<
>>>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<<<
>> Quorum, n.: The requirement for a Congressional meeting to take place. <<
>> From Latin quo: "where is (the)" and rum: "alcoholic
beverage" <<

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Multitasking, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!