Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU!C506634
From: C506634@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU ("Eric Edwards")
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Centralized vs distributed computing
Message-ID: <9003210649.AA06750@jade.berkeley.edu>
Date: 21 Mar 90 06:22:43 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 26

Large, shared, systems seem to be good for
1) large, compute intensive tasks
2) large, IO intensive tasks
3) tasks in which data must be shared with other users.
And are poor at
1) User interaction
2) small jobs that need to have a predictable completion time.

Wheras, single user systems excel at the second group and come up short on the
first.  So.....  Why not combine the two.

Use smaller, cheaper, and less capable micros to provide the user interface and
 run small jobs.  When the going gets tough they could send the job to central
supercomputer.  A smaller central machine would be needed then would be
required with a strictly centralized system.  Not only do the actual cycles not
 goint to supporting the user interface but also  becuase the system could run
close to capasity.  Response time is not much of an issue if the jobs are slow
anyway.  You still waste mips on the micros but since they are smaller machines
 and probably not state of the art machines the mips they waste cost less.
Also, the communication links don't need as much capicity.


|****/ Eric Edwards  (prefered)    | Of course ada is good for large ^****|
|***/ c506634@umcvmb.missouri.edu  | programs.  All Ada programs are  ^***|
|***^ c506634@umcvmb.bitnet        | large!                           /***|
|****^ csh> ls -l Ada/* => -rw-r--r-- 1 c170234 85992 Ada/HelloWorld /****|