Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 Jun 1998 22:38:48 -0400 | From | "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <> | Subject | Re: Remote fork() and Parallel programming |
| |
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 13:29:43 +0330 From: mshar@vax.ipm.ac.ir
>It's not the bandwidth that's the issue, it's the latency. Bandwidth is >easy. Latency is hard. DSM systems /all/ die because of latency issues.
The main argument of anti-DSM people has always been the band-width (that message passing can better use the bandwidth because the programmer has total control over the transfers and can tune the program's behaviour), but fortunately that is no longer important.
Would you like to say more about that? I would think that this is very important, and not being able to handle this case well would result in really bad performance.
If the programmer doesn't know which shared memory is local and which shared memory is distributed across systems, the resulting performance characters could be quite ugly.
- Ted
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |