Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!maddog!brooks
From: brooks@maddog.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: The Killer Micro From Hell
Message-ID: <42600@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 28 Dec 89 22:38:56 GMT
References: <42007@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <3090@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> <42527@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <3091@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: brooks@maddog.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 51

In article <3091@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> rhealey@ub.d.umn.edu (Rob Healey) writes:
>	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.
No, a high quality optimizing, and vectorizing for that matter, C compiler
was used on the Cray.  It was the LLNL C/Civic hybrid compiler which uses
the same back end and optimizer as our Civic Fortran compiler.
The compiler was not a PCC derivitive.  The code quality on the Cray was
very good, the poor Cray supercomputer just couldn't be made to go faster at
reasonable coding cost.  We could have gotten another 50% out of the Cray
in speed for 6 months coding work, and possibly a factor of 2 in one man year.
The R6000 just compiled and ran the code 3.3 times faster.  What choice
would a sensible buyer of computer time make here???

>	What makes you think
>	the bigger systems won't adopt the same technology as the "killer
>	micros" and thus the costs go down.
I do think that "big systems" will adopt Killer Micro technology.
Supercomputer system integrators which don't will not survive the
the coming decade, and I personally doubt that they will survive the
next 5 years.  No one will survive the attack of the Killer Micros,
except those system integrators and users who choose to ride the wave.



>	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?
Yes, but I am not talking about a low cost work station here.  I am referring
to a system with a respectable number of Killer Micro processors.  Vendors
are integrating high performance and high reliability disk systems out
of commodity disks just as vendors will integrate supercomputers out of
Killer Micros.  These disk systems are appearing on boxes in a price
range which is dirt cheap compared to traditional supercomptuers but which
is much more expensive than what what you would put on a desk.  These are
time shared computers for large numbers of users.
>
>	Super computers and mainframes ARE GREAT buys when LOTS of
>	users need to be serviced. You'd be foolish to think 1000 users
I think that that cold weather has gotten to your neurons.

>	My original point is being totally ignored here:
Your original point is not being ignored, you are ignoring the high
performance I-O systems that are appearing on Killer Micro powered systems.
These high performance I-O systems are built of commodity disk drives
and are much cheaper, while being faster, than high performance disk drives
used on supercomputers.


brooks@maddog.llnl.gov, brooks@maddog.uucp