eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (07/21/86)
I gave my performance measurement talk at the IBM Palo Alto Scientific Center last week at the invitation of Alan Karp. I thought I might relay the current status of the challenge since it was mentioned in net.arch. First, there is some misunderstanding about the challenge. The challenge was to demonstrate some factor of 100 simple speedup of some program running on a computer. So, the Connection Machine with 64K processors falls down in two areas: 1) the computer must be an MIMD rather than SIMD type (Multiple Instruction Stream Multiple Data Stream from Flynn's [1966] classification scheme). 2) The program must be capable of running on a single CPU of said computer. Second, the only person to even suggest a possible challenge had an ICL DAP. The DAP fails for the same reasons the CM does: SIMD and non-single CPU execution. If you are unfamiliar with the DAP, better do some homework, they've been around a few years. And if you don't know who ICL is, your DEC/IBM/or other American bias is showing. Third the Karp prize is strictly intended to be token. This prize is like the prizes offered by guys like Adleman for breaking the RSA public key encryption algorithm or Hellman (who paid Adleman for breaking his algorithm). From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center com'on do you trust Reply commands with all these different mailers? {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,tektronix,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
cdshaw@watrose.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (07/28/86)
In article <1578@ames.UUCP> eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes: >First, there is some misunderstanding about the challenge. The challenge >was to demonstrate some factor of 100 simple speedup of some program >running on a computer. So, the Connection Machine with 64K processors >falls down in two areas: 1) the computer must be an MIMD rather than >SIMD type (Multiple Instruction Stream Multiple Data Stream from >Flynn's [1966] classification scheme). 2) The program must be capable of >running on a single CPU of said computer. > >Second, the only person to even suggest a possible challenge had an ICL DAP. > >--eugene miya > NASA Ames Research Center Actually, someone with a 128-node hypercube machine could probably do this. Finding eigenvalues from a tridiagonal matrix using Bisection is very parallel. Cleve Moler has a routine which does this. We have run it here at Waterloo on our 64-node Intel hypercube, and the speedup attained by simply throwing processors at the problem is remarkable. Unfortunately, I can't remember the numbers. Also, a local user has a Ray Tracing program which is almost entirely without communication, and could therefore run above the required speedup number. A local copy of the scene is kept on each node, and each processor is responsible for a scan line. The results are then sent back, and a new scan line is assigned. Given a 128-node hypercube, I would fully expect 126-127 or so speedup. Both applications fit the two requirements: The iPSC is MIMD, and they can both run on 1 node. So. Anyone got a spare iPSC-d6 (64 nodes) they could lend us? Also, since I can name two, would we get $200 ?? B-) Chris Shaw watmath!watcal!cdshaw or cdshaw@watmath University of Waterloo Bogus as HELL!!