🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989Oct23.152120.25967@cs.rochester.edu> crowl@snipe.cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) writes:
> SHARED MEMORY HAS A COST.  Implementing shared memory over a scalable
> interconnect may require a larger aggregate bandwidth than that of distributed
> memory systems..  I don't think there has been enough research here to know
> the real tradeoff, but such a result would not suprise me.

Also, the job of programming a shared memory system is a lot harder than
programming a system with messages as the communication medium. The number
of successful message-based operating systems demonstrates this.

Of course you can implement messages in shared memory (a trivial proof is
aforementioned operating systems), and gain a perfromance improvement. The
question is whether this offsets the extra bandwidth.

Ah well, I'd much rather have both.
-- 
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-'
"That particular mistake will not be repeated.  There are plenty of        'U`
 mistakes left that have not yet been used." -- Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)