Shourya:
>*>> One more thing, Transputers don't give you performance factors
>*>> anywhere near to a properly tuned NOW. So there is no point in sticking
>*>> with them. Also,if you have debugged in OCCAM, you will realize why
>*>> this immeasurable hate ;)
>*>
Shanker :
>*>Given Transputers which are sufficiently fast- I disagree. A Transputer
>*>system is closer to a closely coupled system than a NOW. You CANNOT beat the
>*>speed of a Closely coupled system with a loosely coupled system( With
>*>comparable hardware) .
Shourya:
Logically, you are correct. But only logically. The catch is that it is
foolish to compare Transputers with modern day COTS hardware..because
even the fastest of transputers do not match the average
available hardware.. think of your own machine which I believe is a
Celeron "overclocked" 333. I do not have the specs right now but shall
comply on request.So you see, it is not possible to get transputers which
are "sufficiently" fast.. they have been decommissioned . Try getting
some to India and you will know exactly how sensitive these imports are.
>*> They can run a far larger number of algorithms than a
>*>NOW .
Huh ?? Do you have any examples in mind ? I am not aware of any .
Please provide evidence to hold your ground.
Infact there are systems like PVM, languages like Paralallaxis which do
provide scope for 100 % MIMD design.
On the contrary, I could provide you with a 1001 examples as to
situations which can be handled by NOW but not on Transputers.
>*> Their drawback is their cost and their complexity.
Complexity ? What complexity ? Infact, OCCAM is one of the easiest
languages to learn !(albeit the toughest to debug){REaad about the
Philosopy of the Occam's Razor, and you will know why ;)
Also, the conceptual aspect of a network of transputers is _much_ easier
to comprehend than ,say, a WAN Architecture, complete with routers and
their policies. {This is highly debatable though, since understanding and
aptitude is so much a function of personal characteristics.}
To top it all, the theoritical model behind transputers message passing
paradigm is C.A.R. hoare's seminal work on CSP, which is marvellously
simple (after shedding of the mathematics) as a CONCEPT, and hence the
result, the transputer , too is very simple at the programming level of
abstraction. You do not need to go into greater details to write parallel
code.. just like you do not need to know the charge of an elctron which
brightens up your screen, to write a GUI.
In fact, the gentle learning curve in transputers and the touching
simplicity of the model is what that still keeps Transputers and OCCAM
going. So please do not spread FUD about the complexity of transputers,
just because it is not taught in courses offerred by the roadside
mushrooming computer institutes.
>*> Given a choice
>*>between an 8 way system and 8 machines - I would pick the 8 way system
>*>anyday ( As far as speed goes)
I seriously would reccomend you NOT to.. if the closely coupled system is
a T8 series . Given my experiences (I have done a modest amount of
performance evaluation and characteristic determination on Coupled
systems , both Transp and NOWs), it is far more efficient to stick to a
NOW , if SPEED is your concern.Otherwise, you will be grossly
disappointed.
Shourya
--
_______________________________________________________________
Shourya Sarcar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <Tel:91-033-4710477>
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Jadavpur University Calcutta, India 700 032
All the world's a stage..
And I am acting tonight
C - the difference : http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
--
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body
"unsubscribe ilug-cal" and an empty subject line.
FAQ: http://www.ilug-cal.org/help/faq_list.html
