Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!uwvax!astroatc!johnw
From: johnw@astroatc.UUCP (John F. Wardale)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: chewing up mips with graphics
Message-ID: <337@astroatc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Jun-87 14:29:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: astroatc.337
Posted: Wed Jun 24 14:29:51 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Jun-87 06:37:59 EDT
References: <8270@amdahl.amdahl.com> <359@rocky2.UUCP> <6240@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> <6328@beta.UUCP> <2120@dg_rtp.UUCP>
Reply-To: johnw@astroatc.UUCP (John F. Wardale)
Organization: Astronautics Technology Cntr, Madison, WI
Lines: 34

In article <2120@dg_rtp.UUCP> wood@dg_rtp.UUCP (Tom Wood) writes:
>Personally, I believe the 90% solution to obtaining parallelism is to
>take advantage of multiple independent computations.  (It's much easier
>to make 100 compiles go 100 times faster by using 100 machines than it
>is to make 1 machine go 100 times faster on each compile.)

This may be true, but for most "real" problems, some well know
person determined that the average code spends 90% of its time
executing 10% of its code.

This and other related studys show that a large fraction of
problems that have no, or very limited parrallelism.

A couple mounths ago there was some discussion of somebody's
challenge (with a moderate cash prize) .... As I recall, you had
to speed up a general problem (not limited to HIS problem set, but
he could reject anything that was "embarrisingly parrallel" [like
the 100 compiles example]) by a factor of 100, and you could use
as many processors as you wanted.   Did anyone save any of these?
Has anyone won the prize yet?




			John W

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Name:	John F. Wardale
UUCP:	... {seismo | harvard | ihnp4} !uwvax!astroatc!johnw
arpa:   astroatc!johnw@rsch.wisc.edu
snail:	5800 Cottage Gr. Rd. ;;; Madison WI 53716
audio:	608-221-9001 eXt 110

To err is human, to really foul up world news requires the net!