🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1205@ogcvax.UUCP> pase@ogcvax.UUCP (Douglas M. Pase) writes:
>The two types of machines do not compare well, as they are best used for
>different problems.  If you want many users running independent tasks, sharing
>common resources with near constant response, shared memory machines are more
>appropriate.  If you want a lower cost-per-node and you have a problem that
>can be partitioned into a reasonable number of communicating tasks, a
>distributed machine may be more appropriate.
>Doug Pase   --   ...ucbvax!tektronix!ogcvax!pase   or   pase@Oregon-Grad

Seeing how two different people suggested that distributed memory is
inappropriate for multiple users running independent tasks, maybe someone
could tell me why.  I find it hard to imagine a problem which is more
partitionable.  Since the tasks are independent, each user should be very
happy to have her very own address space.  Personally, I'm trying to
convince my boss that the productivity of this department would go way
up if each of us had our very own clipper based workstation with 8 Meg
of memory and a 19" high resolution bit-mapped screen communicating
over an ethernet to such common resources as a file system and printers.

(Some of my friends don't think a clipper would be powerful enough, and
they want a hypercube of clippers as their very own workstation.  They
also want to be able to run lots of independent tasks on their workstation
instead of the three or four that I get by with.)

-- Chuck