Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 14:07:23 -0700 From: Summoner <summoner@uswest.net> To: James Howard <howardjp@wam.umd.edu> Cc: Phil Regnauld <regnauld@ftf.net>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Unisys backing NT Message-ID: <379B7C8B.3DCAF146@uswest.net> References: <Pine.OSF.3.95q.990725122806.11440A-100000@tracy.umd.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
James Howard wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jul 1999, Summoner wrote: >> http://www.marketplace.unisys.com/ent/cmparch.pdf >> >> To put it simply, a CMP system is a (2x2)x2x8 32-way cluster-in-a-box >> with lots of inter-machine shared memory, 96 PCI slots, the ability to >> run 8 OSes at once, and a crossbar switch that would give any hardware >> junkie wet dreams. >> >> I want two. :-) > > Does FreeBSD run on it? Would it be useful for RSA cracking? :) Cracking keys? It's proven that any civilian encryption system, given enough CPU cycles, can be broken. It's a waste of time IMO, but then it's your electricity bill, not mine. I think something like GIMPS is far more productive (and lucritive). Unisys's changes in the architecture design are supposedly invisible to the OS running on each sub-pod. It's based on Intel Xeon CPUs, so it's at least theoretically possible that FreeBSD would run on it. The hype-pages do say that Unisys has been working closly with MS on this one to get NT working on it, so they may very well be using a special kernel (like what SGI did with the 320 and 540). If that's the case, then it's likely FreeBSD compatibility is making a sprint for the nearest window. But I'm no kernel hacker, so I have little idea of what would break "our" kernel. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?379B7C8B.3DCAF146>