Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!uwvax!umn-d-ub!rhealey
From: rhealey@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Rob Healey)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: The Killer Micro From Hell
Message-ID: <3091@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU>
Date: 28 Dec 89 20:37:41 GMT
References: <42007@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <3090@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> <42527@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Reply-To: rhealey@ub.d.umn.edu (Rob Healey)
Organization: University of Minnesota, Duluth
Lines: 60

In article <42527@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> brooks@maddog.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks) writes:
>In article <3090@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> rhealey@ub.d.umn.edu (Rob Healey) writes:
>We have Cray machines on site, the MIPS R6000 system was a compile and go
>benchmark run done by the vendor.  Just which system do you think the code
>was "tuned" for, within the limits of keeping the code portable, readable
>and maintainable?
>
	Could also be the fact that MIPS has some of the best compiler
	technology around. If I remember the Cray C compiler is a pcc
	derivitive; YUCK-O-RAMA.

>>	I find it disturbing that ALOT of people pay attention only to
>>	MIPS, or only one aspect of a system, and not to full systems as a
>>	whole. To over simplify: 
>My main reason to reponding to this article is that there are a lot
>of people with their heads in the sand who still think that traditional
>supercomputers or mainframes are good buys.  I hate to see people get
>bushwacked by Killer Micros when they can just ride the wave.  Killer
>Micro powered systems are no longer just more cost effective, for
>scalar application codes they are faster...
>
	Being my head is currently in Minnesota I'd say it might be in
	a snow bank but definitely NOT in the sand. What makes you think
	the bigger systems won't adopt the same technology as the "killer
	micros" and thus the costs go down. How good will your scalar 6000
	do HUGE data sets that require movement to and from I/O? The MIPS
	performance of the 6000 may well beat a super or mainframe but
	what about scalar problems that require heavy I/O? Will your
	low cost workstation be able to handle those problems better?

	Super computers and mainframes ARE GREAT buys when LOTS of
	users need to be serviced. You'd be foolish to think 1000 users
	would be best served by networked workstations maxed out with disk
	and memory so they can run at top speed. That situation requires a
	heirarchy of disk, CPU and memory networked together very carefully.

	My original point is being totally ignored here:

	MIPS is useless if the data can't flow in and out of the CPU
	at the rating of the CPU. The "Killer Micro" is a glorified oscillator
	when it has to wait for I/O to complete. DON'T use a diskless
	"Killer Micro" low cost workstation to try to do REAL work. Let the
	manufacturer nickel and dime you for fast disks and fast memory in
	vast quantitys.  While the MIPS arguement might work on the
	ignorant IBM PeeWee masses, technical people know better than to
	just look at one aspect of a problem and think the problem solved
	based only on that one aspect/criteria. When you solve a problem with
	a computer you have to weigh MIPS vs memory vs disk vs networking vs ??.
	You'll screw yourself over BIG TIME if you totally ignore any of the 4
	in heavy favor of 1 or 2 of the factors.

	This is my point, it looks like I picked the wrong article to bring it
	out on.

	'Nuff siad before we waste bandwidth on a subject most MIPS junkies
	will "stick their head in the sand" on...

			-Rob

I speak for no one but myself, they'd ignore me anyways...