Path: 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

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