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
First, I'm not paying much attention. Maybe next week. However, as
messages that Eudora tags with multiple chiles tend to get my
attention, be aware that the following are non-negotiable:
1) We are relying on OS services for all threading constructs
We are not going to count on 'atomic' operati
10 matches
Mail list logo
