Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!prlvax1.prl.philips.co.uk!EDMONDS From: EDMONDS@prlvax1.prl.philips.co.uk (Mark from Philips) Newsgroups: comp.sys.transputer Subject: (none) Message-ID: <900924121517.00002C28131@prlvax1.prl.philips.co.uk> Date: 24 Sep 90 12:15:17 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 56 A thought occurred to me the other day. Some people can't afford transputer hardware, even though it is relatively cheap these days. It would also be nice to see occam running on other machines - so what can one do? What would people think if, rather than using transputers, networks of workstations were used instead. Thus, you would write your occam code as usual; however, in the configuration description (PROGRAM fold), rather than saying: PLACED PAR PROCESSOR 0 T8 ... placed channels and SC PROC PROCESSOR 1 T8 ... placed channels and SC PROC PROCESSOR 2 T8 ... placed channels and SC PROC etc, you would write: PLACED PAR PROCESSOR 0 node_name ... placed channels and SC PROC PROCESSOR 1 node_name ... placed channels and SC PROC PROCESSOR 2 node_name ... placed channels and SC PROC where node_name (yes, you've guessed it) is the name of a node (workstation) on your network. Communication (if one is running under UNIX) would take place via sockets rather than links. One big advantage is that you are not limited to a fixed number of physical channels - instead you have virtual channels! This makes it somewhat compatible with the H1. Is this a practical solution? Would people be interested? We have a package that would allow you to do this easily, if only we had the source to the occam compiler/configurer, etc. It means that you can achieve parallel processing, without buying transputers, and it makes occam more attractive to run on non-transputer based machines. Any comments? Mark Edmonds Philips Research Labs