Article View: comp.arch
Article #13002Re: shared memory multiproc. question
From: pase
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1987 00:15
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1987 00:15
18 lines
1519 bytes
1519 bytes
In article <uiucdcsp.76700002> johnson@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: [...] >This is all fine, but the Butterfly is pretty expensive, and the various >hypercubes are hard to use. [...] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Different kinds of machines are good for different kinds of things, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >and I want a very cheap shared memory multiprocessor with only >a handful of processors. Hypercubes are hard to use only if you don't know anything about them, or about what they're good for. For the type of processing you're doing, (many independent users/tasks) yes a hypercube (or any other distributed memory multiprocessor) would be totally inappropriate. For large scale computing, a hypercube might actually be easier to use. It all depends on what you're doing. -- Doug Pase -- ...ucbvax!tektronix!ogcvax!pase or pase@Oregon-Grad
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1206@ogcvax.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!tektronix!reed!omssw2!ogcvax!paseReferences:
<76700001@uiucdcsp> <uiucdcsp.76700002>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!tektronix!reed!omssw2!ogcvax!pase From: pase@ogcvax.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: shared memory multiproc. question Message-ID: <1206@ogcvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 17-Feb-87 19:15:04 EST Article-I.D.: ogcvax.1206 Posted: Tue Feb 17 19:15:04 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 20-Feb-87 03:30:25 EST References: <76700001@uiucdcsp> <uiucdcsp.76700002> Reply-To: pase@ogcvax.UUCP (Douglas M. Pase) Organization: Oregon Graduate Center, Beaverton, OR Lines: 18