Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!bellcore!rutgers!modus!otello!gear!cadlab!martelli
From: martelli@cadlab.sublink.ORG (Alex Martelli)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.super
Subject: Re: How you define a supercomputer ?
Message-ID: <856@cadlab.sublink.ORG>
Date: 17 May 91 15:51:07 GMT
References: <1991May12.160205.9784@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1991May13.051215.8101@nas.nasa.gov> <377@nic.cerf.net> <1991May14.230507.8959@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <144146.17259@timbuk.cray.com>
Organization: CAD.LAB, Bologna, Italia
Lines: 15

A definition I remember, and which seems to me to make sense: a supercomputer
is a system architected and designed for PERFORMANCE, to the *detriment* of
PRICE/performance.  The curve you can draw with price on X axis and
performance on y axis will generally have an inflection point: below that,
you are below optimal price/performance because you are not exploiting
economies of scale, and above that, you are below optimal price/performance
because of diminishing-returns effects.  
I always like this idea, incomplete as it is, because to me it says something
about the ('politically' motivated) "wisdom" of buying a supercomputer, and
then overloading it with timesharing jobs...
-- 
Alex Martelli - CAD.LAB s.p.a., v. Stalingrado 53, Bologna, Italia
Email: (work:) martelli@cadlab.sublink.org, (home:) alex@am.sublink.org
Phone: (work:) ++39 (51) 371099, (home:) ++39 (51) 250434; 
Fax: ++39 (51) 366964 (work only), Fidonet: 332/407.314 (home only).