Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!dev!dgis!jkrueger
From: jkrueger@dgis.dtic.dla.mil (Jon)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Killer Micros and vectorized code
Message-ID: <798@dgis.dtic.dla.mil>
Date: 19 Mar 90 14:57:11 GMT
References: <51771@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <100598@convex.convex.com> <52661@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Organization: Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), Alexandria VA
Lines: 42

brooks@maddog.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks) writes:

>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 quite correct, and therefore we should stop using personal
automobiles, too.  Instead we should use taxis, car pools, and
other forms of better sharing the same basic hardware.  This will
increase the <10% utilization of most cars.

OK, ob. smiley.  Yes, we like having our own cars, and we like having
our own local source of computation, and we're going to continue
to choose this whenever we have a choice.  It's a fact of life.

The point that you can "switch between processors in milliseconds", is
quite correct and equally compelling when applied on the other side of
the arguement.  When the individual grants use of his processor to
others, more generally when individuals share their processors with
each other, they make use of millisecond-flexible sharing, but retain
control of local resources.

No question about it, you waste a lot of resources by keeping them
isolated and idle.  The point here is that this isn't a technology
decision, it's a policy decision.  The ability for the individual
to have 100% of his local computational power available to him
on demand is a policy widely favored by individuals.  The ability
to get the most computation per dollar is a policy widely favored
by central planners.

No one argues that these policies are in any way compatible.  They both
exist, and each drives a different kind of purchase decision.  Neither
has anything to do with how you build technology.  Both have much to do
with you how you buy it, and rather little to do with computer
architecture, at this late date.

-- Jon
-- 
Jonathan Krueger    jkrueger@dtic.dla.mil   uunet!dgis!jkrueger
The Philip Morris Companies, Inc: without question the strongest
and best argument for an anti-flag-waving amendment.