Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!pixar!unicom!physh
From: physh@unicom.UUCP (Jon 'Quality in - Quantity out' Foreman)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Single/Multi Tasking position summary (was Re: Single tasking)
Message-ID: <230@unicom.UUCP>
Date: 4 Jan 88 00:49:23 GMT
References: <60@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> <18079@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Reply-To: physh@unicom.UUCP
Organization: Halcon Co. et al., via College of Marin in California.
Lines: 31

In article <18079@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes:
>[...] then I got everything going and kicked the plug out of my
>terminal when I got up to empty the washer
>The software in question was nethack which has 75 .c modules,
>approximate wall clock time to compile [...]
>
>System		h:mm:ss	Notes
>Vax11/750:	1:39:00 (4.3bsd, 8MB, RA81s)
>Encore/Umax:	   2:10	(6 CPUS, make told to use at most 8 processes*)
>Encore/Umax:	  11:00	(same machine, use at most 1 process)
>Sun3/280:	  13:32 (16MB, Super-eagles, 68881)
>

	Why didn't you include the benchmark time from the washing
machine. *I* at least am very curious about how the various speeds and
temperatures settings effect overall performance.  Does MOVing wet
laundry from washer to dryer improve overall response times, or is it
better to put the wet laundry on a line outside to dry thus freeing the
capacity of the dryer?  I am sure that many of us out here in netland
are on the edge of our seats waiting to find out what a washing machine
could do to the 75 .c modules that encompass nethack.

	If the benchmark is particularly fast, what will be the impact
on future mechanical based computing engines?  The mind boggles.


					Jon   :-)
-- 
ucbvax!pixar!\            | For small letters  | ~~~~~~~\~~~   That's spelled
hoptoad!well!unicom!physh | ( < 10K ) only:    |  Jon  }()      "physh" and 
       ptsfa!/            | physh@ssbn.wlk.com |        /     pronounced "fish".