Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!think!husc6!hscfvax!pavlov
From: pavlov@hscfvax.UUCP (840033@G.Pavlov)
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k
Subject: Re: BYTE "68000" issue
Message-ID: <221@hscfvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Sep-86 23:16:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: hscfvax.221
Posted: Thu Sep 11 23:16:17 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Sep-86 22:15:53 EDT
References: <3868@ut-ngp.UUCP> <1058@hoptoad.uucp>
Organization: Health Sciences Computing Facility, Harvard University
Lines: 22

In article <1058@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
> > UNIX and the MC68000 (by Andrew L. Rood, Robert C. Cline, Jon Brewster)
> > 	The powerful yet simple programmer's model offered by the 68000's
> > 	architecture makes UNIX implementation easy.
> 
> Flame on.
>   < much (most likely) legitimate criticism, including .... 
> 
> * Unix has a lot of trouble with multiprocessor environments.  People
> who run Unix on MP hardware did a lot of hard work on Unix to get
> there.
> 
  I don't claim to know much about multiprocessors, coprocessors, etc.  
  However, I was responsible for an HP9000 system for several years, a system
  which can include up to 3 processors, running under HP's Unix implementation,
  HP-UX.  This system was rock-solid (no software crashes; one 7-month stint
  between hardware failures), the multiprocessor configuration was completely
  transparent, and the "power" increment of each cpu was exactly as advertised.
  So I would say that someof the personnel at HP, at least, do have a good  
  understanding of multiprocessor configurations running under Unix.

   greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny