Mike Cheponis wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Chris Kennedy wrote:
> > 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(!).
Of course not. Nor am I compelled to do your homework for you.
>
> 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.
I understand, but perhaps this isn't the best place to do so?
Best,
Chris
--
Chris Kennedy
chris_at_mainecoon.com
http://www.mainecoon.com
PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97
Received on Tue Oct 26 1999 - 19:38:45 BST