From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Jul 25 14:10:48 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from ptldpop2.ptld.uswest.net (ptldpop2.ptld.uswest.net [198.36.160.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2EDDD150DE for ; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 14:10:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from summoner@uswest.net) Received: (qmail 1178 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 1999 21:07:25 -0000 Delivered-To: fixup-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG@fixme Received: (qmail 1151 invoked by uid 0); 25 Jul 1999 21:07:25 -0000 Received: from edsl209.ptld.uswest.net (HELO uswest.net) (209.180.175.209) by ptldpop2.ptld.uswest.net with SMTP; 25 Jul 1999 21:07:25 -0000 Message-ID: <379B7C8B.3DCAF146@uswest.net> Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 14:07:23 -0700 From: Summoner X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Howard Cc: Phil Regnauld , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Unisys backing NT References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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