Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 22:07:04 -0600 (CST) From: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Jamie Bowden <ragnar@sysabend.org>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, noslenj@swbell.net, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dual 400 -> dual 600 worth it? Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96.991214215754.44414A-100000@shell-1.enteract.com> In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19991214174918.04736140@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, Brett Glass wrote: > At 06:05 AM 12/14/1999 , Jamie Bowden wrote: > > >Can I point out that the PC isn't the only platform on the planet? When I > >was at NASA 16 processor (or more) Origin2000's and Sun Enterprise servers > >with anywhere from 200GB to 1TB+ drive arrays on them were quite common. > > > >Eventually PC's won't be single processor toys. > > Multiprocessing has always been a stopgap measure to get extra performance > out of a machine until uniprocessors caught up. The diminishing returns But uniprocessors will never catch up. The glue needed to build an N-way machine will always be less expensive than N uniprocessor boxes. N may change in value as technology changes, but the benefit of being able to share resources like memory and I/O channels wil always exist for some applications. > make tightly coupled multiprocessing far less desirable than loosely > coupled (or uncoupled!) distributed computing. For some applications loosely coupled multi-processing makes sense. For others, like operations on one datastream, it doesn't. David Scheidt 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?Pine.NEB.3.96.991214215754.44414A-100000>