Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!cit-vax!amdahl!chuck From: chuck@amdahl.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: shared memory multiproc. question Message-ID: <5699@amdahl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 19-Feb-87 22:10:54 EST Article-I.D.: amdahl.5699 Posted: Thu Feb 19 22:10:54 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 21-Feb-87 03:36:18 EST References: <76700001@uiucdcsp> <1205@ogcvax.UUCP> Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA Lines: 25 Summary: independent tasks partition easily In article <1205@ogcvax.UUCP> pase@ogcvax.UUCP (Douglas M. Pase) writes: >The two types of machines do not compare well, as they are best used for >different problems. If you want many users running independent tasks, sharing >common resources with near constant response, shared memory machines are more >appropriate. If you want a lower cost-per-node and you have a problem that >can be partitioned into a reasonable number of communicating tasks, a >distributed machine may be more appropriate. >Doug Pase -- ...ucbvax!tektronix!ogcvax!pase or pase@Oregon-Grad Seeing how two different people suggested that distributed memory is inappropriate for multiple users running independent tasks, maybe someone could tell me why. I find it hard to imagine a problem which is more partitionable. Since the tasks are independent, each user should be very happy to have her very own address space. Personally, I'm trying to convince my boss that the productivity of this department would go way up if each of us had our very own clipper based workstation with 8 Meg of memory and a 19" high resolution bit-mapped screen communicating over an ethernet to such common resources as a file system and printers. (Some of my friends don't think a clipper would be powerful enough, and they want a hypercube of clippers as their very own workstation. They also want to be able to run lots of independent tasks on their workstation instead of the three or four that I get by with.) -- Chuck