From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Dec 14 16:55:35 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80341150ED for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 16:55:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA28684; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:54:59 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991214174918.04736140@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:51:04 -0700 To: Jamie Bowden From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: dual 400 -> dual 600 worth it? Cc: David Scheidt , Terry Lambert , noslenj@swbell.net, chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: References: <4.2.0.58.19991213220839.00c869e0@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 06:05 AM 12/14/1999 , Jamie Bowden wrote: >Can I point out that the PC isn't the only platform on the planet? When I >was at NASA 16 processor (or more) Origin2000's and Sun Enterprise servers >with anywhere from 200GB to 1TB+ drive arrays on them were quite common. > >Eventually PC's won't be single processor toys. Multiprocessing has always been a stopgap measure to get extra performance out of a machine until uniprocessors caught up. The diminishing returns make tightly coupled multiprocessing far less desirable than loosely coupled (or uncoupled!) distributed computing. Just my 2 cents. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message