🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <220@dg.dg.com> chris@dg.dg.com (Chris Moriondo) writes:
>The only really scalable interconnect schemes of which I am aware are
>multistage interconnects which grow (N log N) as you linearly increase the
>numbers of processors and memories.  So in the limit the machine is essentially
>ALL INTERCONNECT NETWORK, which obviously costs more than the processors and
>memories.  (Maybe this is what SUN means when they say "The Network IS the
>computer"?  :-)  How do you build a shared-memory multi where the cost of the
>interconnect scales linearly?  Obviously I am discounting busses, which don't
>scale well past very small numbers of processors.
The cost of the interconnect can't be made to scale linearly.  You can
only get a log N scaling per processor.  The key is the base of the log
and not having N too large, ie using a KILLER MICRO and not a pipsqueak.
Eight by eight switchnodes are practical at this point, with four by four
being abslolutely easy.  Pin count is the main problem, not silicon area.
Assuming 8x8 nodes, a 512 node system takes three stages, a 4096 node
system takes 4 stages.  Are 4 switch chips cheaper, or equivalent in
cost to a killer micro and 32 meg of memory?


SUNS "The network is the computer" is meant for ethernet types of things
but it really does apply to multiprocessors.  If you don't have real good
communcation capability between the computing nodes what you can do with
the machine is limited.


Could anyone handle a KILLER MICRO powered system with 4096 nodes?
Just think, 4096 times the power of a YMP for scalar but MIMD parallel
codes.  ~400 times the power of a YMP cpu for vectorized and MIMD
parallel codes.  It boggles the mind.

brooks@maddog.llnl.gov, brooks@maddog.uucp