Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!lll-winken!maddog!brooks
From: brooks@maddog.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Killer Micros and vectorized code
Message-ID: <52661@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 17 Mar 90 07:06:51 GMT
References: <51771@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <100598@convex.convex.com>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: brooks@maddog.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 49

In article <100598@convex.convex.com> hamrick@convex1.convex.com (Ed Hamrick)
writes a long article discussing the problems of memory and disk resource
distribution and low processor utilization in "single user systems."

I hope that no one took my articles as an inference that I think that
single user systems are a good thing, I agree with Ed's position completely.
I have utilization data for a large population of single user workstations
at LLNL, on the order of 300 work stations, and the data is so compelling
with regard to the "utilization argument" that I have been requested not
to distribute it.  Companies with a large population of work stations
should use the "rup" command to collect similar data, first sitting down
before looking at the results.  You will be completely shocked to see how
low the processor utilization of single user work stations are.  The
small size of the utilization factor completely negates the cost performance
edge of the Killer Micro inside it.  This is not, however, an argument against
the Killer Micros themselves.  It is an argument against single user workstations
that spend almost ALL their time in the kernel idle loop, or the X screen lock
display program as is often the case.

Computers are best utilized as shared resources, your Killer Micros should
be many to a box and sitting in the computer room where the fan noise does
not drive you nuts.  This is where I keep MY Killer Micros.

The sentence I have often used, "No one will survive the attack of the
Killer Micros," is not to be misinterpreted as "No one will survive the
attach of the Killer Single User WorkStations."  The single user workstations
are indeed Killers, but they are essentially wasted computer resources.
Corporate America will eventually catch on to this and switch to
X display stations and efficiently shared computer resources.

To use the "efficient utilization argument" to support the notion that
low volume custom processor architectures might possibly survive the
attach of the Killer Micros is pretty foolish, however.  Ed, would you
care to run the network simulator and Monte Carlo code I posted results
of on the Convex C210, and post the results to this group?  I won't
ruin the surprise by telling you how it is going to come out...

Perhaps we can get the fellows at Alliant to do the same with their new
28 processor Killer Micro powered machine.  That i860 is definitely a
Killer Micro. After we compare single CPU performances, perhaps we could
then run the MIMD parallel versions on the Convex C240 and the Alliant 28
processor Killer Micro powered box.  Yes, there are MIMD parallel versions
of both codes which could probably be made to run on both machines.


         NO ONE WILL SURVIVE THE ATTACK OF THE KILLER MICROS!


brooks@maddog.llnl.gov, brooks@maddog.uucp