Xref: utzoo comp.arch:16531 comp.os.mach:440 comp.sys.m88k:220
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!strath-cs!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!tommyk
From: tommyk@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.os.mach,comp.sys.m88k
Subject: Re: 88k vs. i860 for a shared memory parallel processor running MACH
Keywords: 88k, i860, caching, tlsb, shared memory, MACH
Message-ID: <5473@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: 14 Jun 90 11:05:49 GMT
References: <1890@xn.LL.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: tommyk@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland
Lines: 23

In article <1890@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> jjh@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (James J. Hunt) writes:
>Would anyone care to comment on the relative advantages and disadvantages of
>the Motorola 88100/88200 and the Intel i860 for a shared memory
>multiprocessor running MACH.  

Some researchers at the Swedish Institute of Computer Science (SICS)
are using the 88100/88200 in a MACH (I believe) machine.

Their 'DATA DIFFUSION MACHINE' uses the write-once aspect of the
200's cache coherency mechanism to allow snarfing.  This, they say,
allows the machine to act as a shared memory system to the programmer,
but as a message passing system to the data coherency mechanisms.

There was a report about the DDM in a recent Comp. Arch. News, written
by Erik Hagersten of SICS.

I don't know how the 860 scores on this, but the SICS guys checked out
a number of processors and found that the 88K was the only architecture
suitable.

I can try to find more details if you want.

tk