Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!caip!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdcc6!calmasd!rfc
From: rfc@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP (Robert Clayton)
Newsgroups: net.arch,net.unix
Subject: Re: ELXSI System 6400 .... Information needed
Message-ID: <1960@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Jun-86 13:44:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: calmasd.1960
Posted: Fri Jun 20 13:44:25 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Jun-86 03:20:41 EDT
References: <203@cybavax.UUCP> <1946@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP> <120@portal.UUcp>
Distribution: net
Organization: G.E. CALMA R&D, San Diego, CA
Lines: 14
Xref: linus net.arch:3249 net.unix:7642
Summary: follow-up to info re ELXSI

In article <120@portal.UUcp>, jel@portal.UUcp (John Little) writes:
> In article <1946@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP>, rfc@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP (Robert Clayton) writes:
> > a 10 processor test at Sandia Labs they got 10.1X the power of a single
> > processor.  
> 
> This is an interesting trick. Does anyone have a clue about how they
> got a greater than linear speedup?  Was this a cpu benchmark or did
> it include i/o?

I'm told since I wrote this that the problem involved much context
switching and that this overhead (measured on a per processor basis)
was reduced when the problem was spread out over several processors.

rfc@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP (Robert Clayton)