Newsgroups: comp.parallel
From: acaird@engin.umich.edu (Andrew Justin Caird)
Subject: Re: KSR reliability (was Re: SMP vs. MPP)
Organization: University of Michigan
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 18:21:33 GMT
Message-ID: <ACAIRD.95Jan6113351@meson.engin.umich.edu>

In article <dm-0601950219560001@128.89.19.84> dm@bbn.com (David Mankins) writes:
   From: dm@bbn.com (David Mankins)
   Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 15:56:23 GMT

   In article <3eb530$6bk@convex.convex.com>, strauss@convex.convex.com
   (Henry Strauss) wrote:

   > 
   > Yes, there was a reliability problem -- in fact more than one --
   > but I don't see this as anything surprising.  The KSR machines were
   > still relatively new products, and AllCache the first hardware
   > implementation of virtually shared memory.

   Surely the BBN GP1000 (a later version of the Butterfly) had
   virtually shared memory --- they ran Mach.  On the other hand, a lot of
   BBN Butterfly hardware engineers moved to KSR after BBN announced
   it was getting out of the parallel processor business.

   - dave mankins (dm@bbn.com, dm@world.std.com)

Indeed it was a very similar arch. 

And a lot of them are moving back now, no? ;)

--andrew


