Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!abbott!keith
From: keith@mips.COM (Keith Garrett)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Historical architectural advances??
Message-ID: <42940@mips.mips.COM>
Date: 8 Nov 90 19:32:46 GMT
References: <1868@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> <8553@scolex.sco.COM> <1888@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> <2443@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk>
Sender: news@mips.COM
Reply-To: keith@mips.COM (Keith Garrett)
Organization: Mips
Lines: 16

In article <2443@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk> jsc@doc.ic.ac.uk (Stephen Crane) writes:
>In article <1888@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> mshute@cs.man.ac.uk (Malcolm Shute) writes:
>>What is the difference between a loosely coupled multicomputer system,
>>and a tightly coupled multiprocessor computer?
>>
>>Granularity of processes for scheduling, and geography of the 'cabinet'
>>size.  That is all (just about).
>Failure modes?  Tightly-coupled multiprocessors are just that and may be
>assumed to fail as a single unit whereas, multicomputers exhibit partial
>failure.
I have to disagree. Tightly-coupled MP's can be designed for partial failure.
The OLTP folk don't even lose the process.
-- 
Keith Garrett        "This is *MY* opinion, OBVIOUSLY"
      Mips Computer Systems, 930 Arques Ave, Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086
      (408) 524-8110     keith@mips.com  or  {ames,decwrl,prls}!mips!keith