fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu (Steve Stevenson-Moderator) (09/23/88)
I found this on comp.arch. Since we have some folks who are not on use net but to whom I mail our news group, I am including it for everyone. While strictly speaking we are not a transputer oriented group ( see comp.sys.transputer), the transputer and occam are certainly prototypical of our interest. ================ article 1 ======= cut here ===================== From: bs@linus.UUCP (Robert D. Silverman) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Transputer based systems. Keywords: transputer, inmos, unix In article <253@uceng.UC.EDU> rsexton@uceng.UC.EDU (robert sexton) writes: >being a fan of parallel system and their advantages, I was wondering why >the transputer has not gotten off the ground as a viable system. It seems >pretty feasable, as well as very cost-effective. I imagine a machine with >several transputers, each running unix. When the machine is lightly loaded, stuff deleted. We have just been though a major decision process where we chose a parallel computer. We discarded the transputer for several reasons: (1) SLOW communication, relative to the IPSC/2 and AMETEK (2) Lack of software; e.g. good debugging tools, compilers, etc. (3) Too heavy a dependence on OCCAM (4) Speed. The IPSC/2 and AMETEK have faster processors and allow for MERCURY type floating point vector boards as nodes (5) Uncertainty as to whether the transputer will last as a viable product. (6) Lack of third party software. These are just a few of the reasons. Bob Silverman
grob@cmcl2.NYU.EDU (Lori S. Grob) (09/23/88)
There is a paper in the Unix on Supercomputers workshop
on just this topic for anyone interested. It is from
a group at Grenoble. The proceedings will be available
as of next week sometime.
Lori S. Grob (NYU Ultracomputer Project)
grob@nyu.arpa
{mcvax!seismo,floyd,harpo,ihnp4,...}!cmcl2!grob [That's c-m-c-ELL-2]
Courant Institute (NYU), 251 Mercer St., NYC 10012, 212-998-3350