Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!eos!amelia!wilbur.nas.nasa.gov!eugene
From: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.super
Subject: Re: I/O subsystems
Message-ID: <6583@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 7 Jun 90 16:33:37 GMT
References: <201@csinc.UUCP> <253@garth.UUCP> <202@csinc.UUCP> <292@garth.UUCP> <10280@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <359@garth.UUCP> <6374@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> <424@garth.UUCP>
Sender: news@amelia.nas.nasa.gov
Reply-To: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Distribution: na
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Lines: 32

In article <424@garth.UUCP> fouts@bozeman.ingr.com (Martin Fouts) writes:
>One of the things which frustrates me in this area is the lack of
>educational effort......
>it is much better than typical "architecture" texts which only
>deal with CPU architecture.

From George Michael:
	There is a fixation on CPUs in this country sort of like a teat
	[female breast].  We have to stop that.  We have to have more
	balanced SYSTEMS.

I would not quite use George's gender-biased language.

	You would.

I would say we are infatuated, or have a fetish on CPUs, and I/O will
continue to be a problem.  So what is industry going to do about it?
The problem, George, is that you scientists want an infinite quantity of
storage, in a finite media, peta-bytes and peta-bytes, and you want it all,
NOW!

	You are right.

Well, I don't see how you are going to get it (infinite).

--e. nobuo miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene

	To the PAX people:
	We tend to use the term "peak" as well, but "Olympic" is
	some new colorful language, we've not heard, but since you
	broadcast, I think you have added it to the vinacular.