On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 10:13, Dan Sugalski wrote;
[...]
> these things. It's a set of 8 4-processor nodes with a fast
> interconnect between them which functions as a 32 CPU system. The
> four processors in each node are in a traditional SMP setup with a
> shared memory bus, tightly coup
At 10:01 AM +1300 1/5/04, Sam Vilain wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 17:53, Dan Sugalski wrote;
> Given that it's not a SMP, massively out of order NUMA system with
> delayed writes... no. 'Fraid not.
Sorry to be pedantic, but I always thought that the NU in NUMA implied
a contradiction of the S in
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 17:53, Dan Sugalski wrote;
> Given that it's not a SMP, massively out of order NUMA system with
> delayed writes... no. 'Fraid not.
Sorry to be pedantic, but I always thought that the NU in NUMA implied
a contradiction of the S in SMP!
"NUMA MP" or "SMP", what does it me
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> At 11:49 PM -0500 1/3/04, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> > "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
DS> (This is one of those cases where I'd really prefer for force
DS> everyone doing thread work to have to work on 8 proc
At 11:49 PM -0500 1/3/04, Uri Guttman wrote:
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> (This is one of those cases where I'd really prefer for force
DS> everyone doing thread work to have to work on 8 processor Alpha
DS> boxes (your choice of OS, I don't care), one of the m
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> (This is one of those cases where I'd really prefer for force
DS> everyone doing thread work to have to work on 8 processor Alpha
DS> boxes (your choice of OS, I don't care), one of the most vicious
DS> threading enviroments ever d
At 11:42 PM + 1/3/04, Nigel Sandever wrote:
03/01/04 23:20:17, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Dan getting cranky snipped]
And that was that! Sorry I spoke.
I'm not trying to shut anyone down. What I wanted to do was stop
folks diving down too low a level. Yes, we could roll our own
At 1:11 AM +0100 1/4/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2) The only thread constructs we are going to count on are:
*) Abstract, non-recursive, simple locks
*) Rendezvous points (Things threads go to sleep on until another
thread pings the condition)
*)
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2) The only thread constructs we are going to count on are:
>*) Abstract, non-recursive, simple locks
>*) Rendezvous points (Things threads go to sleep on until another
> thread pings the condition)
>*) Semaphores (in the "I do a V and P operati
