Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!dduck!johno
From: johno@dduck.ctt.bellcore.com (John OBrien)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sequent
Subject: Re: What?  I'm confused. Sequent their strengths & weaknesses
Message-ID: <17596@bellcore.bellcore.com>
Date: 11 Sep 89 13:06:30 GMT
References: <17580@bellcore.bellcore.com> <5053@eos.UUCP> <11500@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <83733@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Sender: news@bellcore.bellcore.com
Reply-To: johno@dduck.UUCP (John OBrien)
Organization: The Joe Irby Bar and Grill
Lines: 30

In article <83733@pyramid.pyramid.com> csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes:
>In article <11500@boulder.Colorado.EDU> rsk@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Rich Kulawiec) writes:

>Encore, Elxsi, and Pyramid) run symmetric multiprocessors, while NCR (and
>CCI, DEC, and a bunch of others) run master/slave. 

Remove DEC from the above list for the 6000 series (62x0, 63x0, and 64x0)
The 8650 and 8800 are master-slave.

>Generally, if your objective is to do "real" parallel processing, buy a ma-
>chine designed for the job: Multiflow, BB&N Butterfly, et al. 

Depends, much of my work has centered on the use of parallel processing
in "commercial" applications.  That is, applications that traditionally
were not thought of as "parallel processing" applications.  In that light,
use of the "traditional" parallel processing systems is not necessarily the
best choice.  Bunches of 1 bit processors don't do me a whole lot of good
if my application is not extremely computationally intensive.




John O'B


John J. O'Brien
ISCP (Integrated SCP)
ctt!johno or johno@ctt
RRC 4B-307
699-8788