Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ofc!rogers
From: rogers@ofc.Columbia.NCR.COM (H. L. Rogers)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Is Shared Memory Necessary?
Message-ID: <178@ofc.Columbia.NCR.COM>
Date: 23 May 88 16:35:37 GMT
References: <685@thalia.rice.edu> <43700039@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu> <501@cmx.npac.syr.edu>
Reply-To: hl.rogers@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM (H. L. Rogers)
Organization: NCR Corp, E&M-Columbia, W Columbia, SC
Lines: 22

In article <501@cmx.npac.syr.edu> billo@cmx.npac.syr.edu (Bill O'Farrell) writes:
>In article <43700039@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu> turner@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>Are there any other multi-processor architectures that have some mix of
>both local and shared memory?

Yes.  The NCR TOWER 32/800 has local memory for each processing element,
whether it be an application processor, file processor, terminal
processor, communications processor, or what-have-you processor.  It
provides fast local access and is shared globally through messaging
across Multibus II (I think I got that right.).

The point of the original article implies that many people think shared
memory is necessary for speed.  Like most things in life, it depends on
what you want to do.  Shared memory is necessary for cooperating processes
which share the same data to enjoy high speed, but single-threaded
processes can't stand the overhead.  Intelligent customers will choose
the architecture that best fits their application environment.
-- 

------------
HL Rogers    (hl.rogers@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM)