Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!geaclib!daveb
From: daveb@geaclib.UUCP (David Collier-Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  Graziano's Streams Query
Message-ID: <3260@geaclib.UUCP>
Date: 1 Oct 88 22:30:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: geaclib.3260
References: <1247@xyzzy.UUCP>
Organization: GEAC Computers, Toronto, CANADA
Lines: 30


In article <8809260302.AA11541@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> dcrocker@TWG.COM (Dave Crocker) writes:
| One of the emerging major benefits of Streams is its utility in a
| multi-processor environment.  Properly implemented, streams modules may
| operate in DIFFERENT address spaces.  The only shared memory that is needed
| is for message-passing and data-buffers.
 
From article <1247@xyzzy.UUCP>, by thadani@xyzzy.UUCP (Usenet Administration):
|      This suggests that a Streams module may be written in
|      a special way to run in a multi-processor environment, whereas
|      perhaps it is the implementation of the Streams facility that would 
|      most require careful design for multi-processor operation.  

  Well, you can have it either way.  If your suppliers' streams
modules are for a standard uniprocessor configuration, one can write
a special one to transfer data to a separate device.  This might be a
good way of bootstrapping a FEP (front-end processor).
  Conversely, your supplier may use a bootstrap of this sort to
develop a cross-machine streams facility.  It is not immediately
obvious whether such a facility would be transparent or visible to
the streams user, although it would almost definitely be visible to
the system administrator...



-- 
 David Collier-Brown.  | yunexus!lethe!dave
 Interleaf Canada Inc. |
 1550 Enterprise Rd.   | HE's so smart he's dumb.
 Mississauga, Ontario  |       --Joyce C-B