Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!rutgers!sun-barr!olivea!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!hp4nl!sci.kun.nl!atcmpe!jc From: jc@atcmp.nl (Jan Christiaan van Winkel) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Historical architectural advances?? Message-ID: <680@atcmpe.atcmp.nl> Date: 8 Nov 90 13:04:56 GMT References: <1888@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> Organization: AT Computing, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Lines: 38 From article <1888@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>, by mshute@cs.man.ac.uk (Malcolm Shute): > What is the difference between a loosely coupled multicomputer system, > and a tightly coupled multiprocessor computer? > > Our LAN fits into a cabinet called the Department of Computer Science. > How much smaller would it have to be before you would consider it to > be a single multiprocesser computer? Or, what other criterion would > have to be met before it crossed the threshold? > > I am seriously interested in finding out how people in comp.arch make > this distinction. Is it possible that there is *no* firm dividing line > between the two? Does it matter to have an answer to the question? Let's see what A.S. Tanenbaum has to say ("Computer networks", second ed. Prentice Hall, page 4): interprocessor processors located example distance in same 0.1 m circuit board dataflow macine 1 m system [fuzzy... JC] multiprocessor 10m room Local network 100m building '' '' 1 km campus '' '' 10 km city long haul network 100 km country '' '' 1000 km continent interconnection of long haul networks 10,000 km planet [ ;-) JC] '' '' Maybe you do not like these classifications, but at least it gives us a 'standard' we can base our discussions on. (Who has not read ASTs book?) JC -- ___ __ ____________________________________________________________________ |/ \ Jan Christiaan van Winkel Tel: +31 80 566880 jc@atcmp.nl | AT Computing P.O. Box 1428 6501 BK Nijmegen The Netherlands __/ \__/ ____________________________________________________________________