Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!jarthur!usc!samsung!umich!sharkey!cfctech!joel
From: joel@cfctech.cfc.com (Joel Lessenberry)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 64 bits
Summary: Single Level Store
Message-ID: <1990Aug16.185129.13077@cfctech.cfc.com>
Date: 16 Aug 90 18:51:29 GMT
References: <5539@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <13285@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <30728@super.ORG> <13667@cbmvax.commodore.com> <40644@mips.mips.COM> <1990Aug8.042631.7093@nlm.nih.gov> <1990Aug8.215735.4197@zoo.toronto.edu> <46173@ism780c.isc.com> <9660@ganymede.inmos.co.uk>
Sender: Joel Lessenberry
Reply-To: joel@cfctech (Joel Lessenberry)
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corporation, Southfield, MI.
Lines: 16

In article <9660@ganymede.inmos.co.uk> stevem@inmos.co.uk (Steve Maudsley) writes:
>This nebulous set of observations implies that a 16Gbyte machine will have the
>same memory cost as a current generation 64Mbyte machine, which we now commonly
>use as NFS or X servers and consider an acceptable cost. NOTE: this is real
>memory, not virtual memory which is typically 10 times bigger because with 
>current technologies it is 10 times cheaper. Therefore, machines with 160Gbyte
>of address space will be affordable.
>
>You will need more than 32bits address space for these machines.
>
>I haven't addressed the issue of what you do with it, but certainly we will be
>using machines this size for simulating the logic circuits that we will be 
>building with the same technologies, because that problem has to be sized to
>the number of transistors that we can manufacture.
>
>Stephen