Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!usc!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrcae!hubcap!Guido
From: gkj@doc.imperial.ac.uk (Guido K Jouret)
Newsgroups: comp.parallel
Subject: Re: parallelism terminology
Message-ID: <7904@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 7 Feb 90 14:03:19 GMT
Sender: fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu
Lines: 25
Approved: parallel@hubcap.clemson.edu

In response to E. Miya's concerns:

In my original posting I only mentioned different kinds of *parallelism*
because I consciously wanted to separate "characteristics" of programs/
algorithms from their implementation or the architectures they run on.
That's why I don't want to deal with such issues as loosely-coupled,
fault-tolerant, etc.  That's a whole other ballgame...

I think it's important to separate program or algorithm "characteristics"
(i.e. kinds of parallelism present) from the way in which such programs
are actually run (e.g. processor-farm model, divide-and-conquer, static
pipeline, etc.).

Thanks to all the people who have been sending me contributions to add
to my list of things to consider.  Keep them coming!

Guido...

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+< Guido K. Jouret >+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/ email:  gkj@uk.ac.ic.doc                         =  Humor is like a frog:    \
| rmail:  Functional Programming Section           =                           |
|         Dept. of Computing                       =  It can be dissected, but |
|         Imperial College                         =    usually dies in the    |
|         London SW7 2AZ                           =         process.          
|         U.K.                                     =                           |   tel:  44-1-589-5111 xt: 7532                   =                           
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~