26 Oct
1999
26 Oct
'99
12:38 p.m.
Mike Cheponis wrote:
I understand, but perhaps this isn't the best place to do so?
Best,
Chris
--
Chris Kennedy
chris(a)mainecoon.com
http://www.mainecoon.com
PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97
On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Chris Kennedy wrote:
Of course not. Nor am I compelled to do your homework for you.
Mike Cheponis wrote:
*sighs* And it's just as easy to demonstrate
cases where multiple
buses are superior to a single, faster bus. What does this have to do
with old iron?
I do not accept your assertion, simply because you asserted it(!).
Relevance to old iron? Because old iron had lots of busses, new ones don't.
Why is that?
Because it isn't the case. For example, the E4500 and its ilk have
multiple busses (mezzanine busses on the CPU and I/O board, I believe
built around Sun's UPA switch, in addition to the Gigaplane main bus,
which in and of itself has multiple buses, at least in the case
of the Starfire's Gigaplane-XB bus). Other examples include the
Cray/whatever 6400 SMP, Pyramid Nile, Sequent S5000 and I suspect
the SGI Challenge and HP T500, although I'd have to check. I
suppose the Sequent (or do they call themselves IBM now) NUMA/
NUMA-Q architecture is multiple bus as well, but not in the
sprit of what you've been discussing.
In my mind, at least, such machines don't qualify as "old iron" :-)
[snip]
Could you please take this to one of the
architecture groups? It
really doesn't seem to belong here.
Chris, I didn't bring this up. I am merely trying to keep cannards out of
the discussion. Truth must prevail, eh? Fuzzy thinking must be eliminated,
etc.