Yea, I remember some statements made about NAS's 14 way. Something to
the effect of "any more than six"...However, wasn't this due to the
memory bus becoming overloaded? And isn't IBM's approach the use of
NUMA to overcome that problem?
Ed Gould wrote:
Now I know I am out of date on this but somewhere in the mists of
time, I could swear that IBM came out saying that anthing above 18(???
this is a number I am not sure of) was not good, in fact it was bad as
the interprocessor costs was more overhead than they were worth.
They sited some physics law (IFIRC) .
Did IBM rethink the "law" or are they just throwing 54 processors out
hoping no one will order it?
My memory is cloudy but I seem to recall these statements around the
time of the 168MP.
Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
