30 May
2011
30 May
'11
1:29 p.m.
Topologically, they are the same. ?As far as
architecture goes, its
the topology that matters. ?As far as commercial success goes, its
the performance that matters. ?You seem to think they failed on both
architecture and commercial success. ?I'm saying they couldn't make a
go of it in the market, but eventually their ideas proved out. ?Right
idea, wrong time/implementation.
And I am still saying that because the networking between the
processors was not good, performance sucked for anything that involved
a large number of processors with problems involving lots of message
passing between nodes. This was the flaw of pretty much all of those
early commercial MPP systems - regardless of the topology. You could
have a fully interconnected crossbar for all the nodes of an MPP
system, but if that crossbar is crap, then the whole system is going
to be crap.
"Wrong time/implementation" pretty much equals "did not work all that
well", as I see it, regardless of how things have turned out today.
--
Will