[lkml]   [1998]   [May]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Asymmetric multiprocessing?
    On Sun, 3 May 1998, Rogier Wolff wrote:
    > Alan Cox wrote:
    > >
    > > > For above configuration I'd say ignore the '020. It just produces very
    > > > serious congestion of the memory bus on the motherboard.
    > >
    > > Or use it as a glorified DMA controller/IRQ buffer
    > This popped up yesterday: if you want to build a large cluster of
    > machines with humungous amounts of processing power (beowulf), would you
    > put one or two processors in each node?
    > Now as an alternative I suggested putting one REAL processor on each
    > node (P-II/400) and one that does all the nasty side-tasks (say a
    > P-II/200)
    > That should allow the compute-intensive task to run at 100% CPU (not
    > just 98%) leaving all the interrupts and other stuff to the other
    > processor.

    Buzzword: Transputer.
    Mainframe era buzzword: frontend computer.

    ie: You run the operating system on the 'main' (OK,
    the right word is central) computer. Then the OS
    runs the app(s) on the other CPU+RAM boards on the

    - 1 Pentium 166 + 128M + loads of disks + network
    - 3 PCI cards with single PII/400 (or a specialized
    DSP for that matter) and 32 MB RAM.

    Then the programs need to be split up in 'small' parts
    and the OSes can give each fast CPU a task to chew on.

    Somewhat like the push equivalent of :)

    | Linux: - LinuxHQ MM-patches page | Scouting webmaster |
    | - kswapd ask-him & complain-to guy | Vries cubscout leader |
    | | <> |

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:42    [W:0.029 / U:7.180 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site