🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6123@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>I believe that a factor almost more important than comparing where
>current machines are is to investigate where their vendors are going.
>The "mips" game is changing so rapidly that I for one tend to demand
>some outline of a vendor's game plan for the next (very) few years.

Some one posted that "you should go out and survey" what users are doing
now.  I mailed back that this is wrong.  If you do this, you are
guaranteed to be TWO generations between what users need.  You should
ask users what they PLAN to (would like to) do next.

I also ask people for vision and perspective.  I'm really disillusioned with
ELXSI, I think they wasted too much time with EMBOS.  Alliant has always
been too slow scalar wise.  Convex is trying to keep up, but Wallach has
to get scalar speed up.  Several other companies look interesting.  SCS
got side tracked on CTSS then COS.  Multiflow looks interesting, but
will probably suffer from scalar speeds, too.  There's too little
software on the Connection Machine to make it more than a curiosity.
The same could be said the the Hypercubes.  (Hypercomputing? anyone?)

>A rule of thumb I am using right now is that vendors must be able to
>present to me the following clearly defined paths:
>
>	1. Workstations - dozens of mips
>	2. Super-minis - 100ish mips (with small numbers of processors)
>	3. Larger scale parallel systems - to 1000 mips or more, w/o voodoo.
>	4. Mainframes, super-computers - hard to say, Cray-II's are
>	a good baseline, as in "when will you acheive Cray performance
>	for 1/X the cost?". I/O and Floating Point performance is the
>	issue here as much as raw CPU system performancs.

Note you have mostly prefixes and adjectives.  These are meaningless.  I
suggest an interview with Enrico Clementi entitled "Supercomputer is
just a marketing term."  Note you really don't have micros or minis,
they are gone.  I would assert super-minis and mainframes are basically
going.  There will juse be computers: something like workstations and
computing akin to supers (I don't like this latter prefix).  As
quantitative evidence, I point you to any of Gordon Bell's recent papers
on trends.  Just call them computers and put them on the same scale.
Worry about $$s later.

>Some good examples:  #terrible examples
>
>Sun and Iris (MIPS) are indicating clear paths to double-digit mips
>in the very near future in the workstation arena.
>
>Systems like the Elxsi and Encore look like they have a clear path
>to three-digits for their "mainline" products in the near future.

the problem with all these new engines is their scalar units are too
slow.  Cray has nothing to worry about.

>the new IBM3090 series are also moving in the right direction
>(although the software still leaves lots to be desired.)

I don't know.  The last time I looked, the 3090 fortran compiler is better than
anything I've seen.  This includes Convex's, Alliant's, and Fujitsu's.
You must mean the OS ;-).

>I think the real problem will soon be finding ways to keep them busy.

True.  On several levels: the load leveling aspect, the application
level, and so forth.

>Oh well, it's refreshing every so often to retune your brain.
>
>	-Barry Shein, Boston University
Sounds like you need M A X  H E A D R O O M to me.

Actually, we should discuss the concept of balance and matching in
architecture.   Brian Reid posted a really nice thing a couple of years
ago on balance in the then new Mac.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene