Article View: comp.arch
Article #2690Re: parallel systems
From: Jeff d'Arcy
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1989 13:24
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1989 13:24
12 lines
1041 bytes
1041 bytes
From article <7651@bunny.GTE.COM>, by hhd0@GTE.COM (Horace Dediu): > Who cares about shared memory? Distributed is the only way to scale. I'd like to see you back this one up with some *real* proof. I could possibly agree with the statement that distributed is the *best* way to scale, or that distribution is necessary for *large* (>~30) scale multiprocessing. I think that shared memory architectures will still be viable for a long time, perhaps as a component of a distributed environment. If you disagree please provide reaasons. Jeff d'Arcy jdarcy@encore.com "Quack!" Encore has provided the medium, but the message remains my own
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<10164@encore.Encore.COM>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!bu-cs!encore!multimax.UUCPReferences:
<7651@bunny.GTE.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!bu-cs!encore!multimax.UUCP From: jdarcy@multimax.UUCP (Jeff d'Arcy) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: parallel systems Message-ID: <10164@encore.Encore.COM> Date: 19 Oct 89 13:24:52 GMT References: <7651@bunny.GTE.COM> Sender: news@Encore.COM Lines: 12