54 Processors?
- From: edgould@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Ed Gould)
- Date: 26 Jul 2005 21:46:35 -0700
Now I know I am out of date on this but somewhere in the mists of time, I could swear that IBM came out saying that anthing above 18(??? this is a number I am not sure of) was not good, in fact it was bad as the interprocessor costs was more overhead than they were worth. They sited some physics law (IFIRC) .
Did IBM rethink the "law" or are they just throwing 54 processors out hoping no one will order it?
My memory is cloudy but I seem to recall these statements around the time of the 168MP.
Ed
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to listserv@xxxxxxxxxxx with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 54 Processors?
- From: SArnett
- RE: 54 Processors?
- From: Bruce boda
- Re: 54 Processors?
- From: Martin Packer
- Re: 54 Processors?
- From: Nicolai Tufar
- Re: 54 Processors?
- From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler
- Re: 54 Processors?
- Prev by Date: RE: ILR005E PLPA PAGE DATA SET FULL
- Next by Date: Re: Routine name/srb
- Previous by thread: Macro GTRACE QUERY
- Next by thread: Re: 54 Processors?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
