Why so little parallelism?
|
From: Eugene Miya on 9 Nov 2006 12:17 >> Not a place for speed? I am not certain what you mean by original? >> You mean vectors? (he wasn't the first.) You mean fast scalar? In article <4rgah0FranamU1(a)mid.individual.net>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?= <jvorbrueggen(a)not-mediasec.de> wrote: >For me, the original Cray approach was your "design systems" but, quite >to the contrary, also "design processors" - i.e., he designed the system >from the ground up. That's commendable - I'm the holistic, systems engineering >type myself - but is no longer viable for a data processing system. I like holistic. You guy have never talked about Cray disk. 8^) Much less the hardware aspects of their file systems. >Even for the crux of the matter, interconnect, I don't currently see any >non-mass market (for a reasonable definition of "mass market" 8-)) succeed. >What has happened to Horus, for example? Unfamiliar with them. >>>For sure. But the goal function has changed: Everybody can jump seven feet >>>high nowadays, but doing it carrying 50 kg of baggage is the new game in town. >> >> They can? I can't jump 7 ft. > >Well, in a sense you're right. Cray always was about building a balanced >system. But in the process, he designed the fastest processing units around. >That is not something that will happen again. Thus, it's not in an individual >discipline that you have to excel; you have to excel in total performance, >i.e., in the decathlon. That would perhaps have been the better analogy. Marathon is usually used in the business sense for time. But I think I agree with you using the decathlon performance analogy. We need to talk start and lead time and infrastructure (lines to make conponents and especially prototypes). >>>>those serious markets won't ever really reveal just what he did for them. >>>>Nor ERA nor CDC. >>>Twaddle. Too much of a conspiracy theory. And do I read "serious" = "national >>>security"!? >> Parts of it. [...] So I have to leave it at: >> Cray likely worked on things which have not been revealed to the open world. This is more a historic question to me. He's been dead over 10 years ERA gone much longer and CDS nothing like CDC. >I will willingly believe that the three-letter agencies and other black >organizations made good use of whatever Cray et al. had to offer. But for them >to drive the product definition and the market, and that in such a way that >people wouldn't have noticed? No way. We're talking fairly large amounts of >money here, and I don't see a public company hiding those amounts in its >balance sheet unnoticed. I am not certain I would think of it as a product. Barb in afc is insistent (as many) in a service economy. And certainly they have far less influence in the market (but we have disk drives because of them, and certain classes of software. Few are watch dogs like John Pike and he used to monitor css. What's happening with them actively I suspect is more subtle than most of you realize. They likely do more in house work as integration (but I suspect less than in the past when the did the work themselves [I am amazed at the number of people that I have encountered who are inspired by the Q character in the Bond films {technologists, not merely people who works for TLAs, but then I liked Greg Morris who played Barney in one of those TLA TV shows when I was younger as opposed to purple dinos}]). It's Blind Man's Bluff (like the Sherry Sontag book and that's their game and that's how blind watch dogs have to work). --
From: Del Cecchi on 9 Nov 2006 14:20 Eugene Miya wrote: >>>Not a place for speed? I am not certain what you mean by original? >>>You mean vectors? (he wasn't the first.) You mean fast scalar? > > > In article <4rgah0FranamU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?= <jvorbrueggen(a)not-mediasec.de> wrote: > >>For me, the original Cray approach was your "design systems" but, quite >>to the contrary, also "design processors" - i.e., he designed the system > >>from the ground up. That's commendable - I'm the holistic, systems engineering > >>type myself - but is no longer viable for a data processing system. > > > I like holistic. You guy have never talked about Cray disk. 8^) > Much less the hardware aspects of their file systems. > > >>Even for the crux of the matter, interconnect, I don't currently see any >>non-mass market (for a reasonable definition of "mass market" 8-)) succeed. >>What has happened to Horus, for example? > > > Unfamiliar with them. > > >>>>For sure. But the goal function has changed: Everybody can jump seven feet >>>>high nowadays, but doing it carrying 50 kg of baggage is the new game in town. >>> >>>They can? I can't jump 7 ft. >> >>Well, in a sense you're right. Cray always was about building a balanced >>system. But in the process, he designed the fastest processing units around. >>That is not something that will happen again. Thus, it's not in an individual >>discipline that you have to excel; you have to excel in total performance, >>i.e., in the decathlon. That would perhaps have been the better analogy. > > > Marathon is usually used in the business sense for time. > But I think I agree with you using the decathlon performance analogy. > We need to talk start and lead time and infrastructure (lines to make > conponents and especially prototypes). > > >>>>>those serious markets won't ever really reveal just what he did for them. >>>>>Nor ERA nor CDC. >>>> >>>>Twaddle. Too much of a conspiracy theory. And do I read "serious" = "national >>>>security"!? >>> >>>Parts of it. [...] So I have to leave it at: >>>Cray likely worked on things which have not been revealed to the open world. > > > This is more a historic question to me. He's been dead over 10 years > ERA gone much longer and CDS nothing like CDC. > > >>I will willingly believe that the three-letter agencies and other black >>organizations made good use of whatever Cray et al. had to offer. But for them >>to drive the product definition and the market, and that in such a way that >>people wouldn't have noticed? No way. We're talking fairly large amounts of >>money here, and I don't see a public company hiding those amounts in its >>balance sheet unnoticed. > > > I am not certain I would think of it as a product. Barb in afc is > insistent (as many) in a service economy. And certainly they have far > less influence in the market (but we have disk drives because of them, > and certain classes of software. Few are watch dogs like John Pike > and he used to monitor css. What's happening with them actively I > suspect is more subtle than most of you realize. > They likely do more in house work as integration (but I suspect less > than in the past when the did the work themselves [I am amazed at the > number of people that I have encountered who are inspired by the Q > character in the Bond films {technologists, not merely people who works > for TLAs, but then I liked Greg Morris who played Barney in one of those > TLA TV shows when I was younger as opposed to purple dinos}]). > It's Blind Man's Bluff (like the Sherry Sontag book and that's their > game and that's how blind watch dogs have to work). > We have disk drives because of them? Who does this refer to? Certainly not CDC or Cray (company or man). -- Del Cecchi "This post is my own and doesn?t necessarily represent IBM?s positions, strategies or opinions.?
From: lynn on 9 Nov 2006 15:08 Del Cecchi wrote: > We have disk drives because of them? Who does this refer to? Certainly > not CDC or Cray (company or man). for the fun of it ... reference to old posting about original raid patent (and other stuff) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006p.html#47 "25th Anniversary of the Personal Computer" and for even more fun ... random postings from this year mentioning misc disk history, disk design, disk enginneering, modeling air-bearing effect for design of original thin-film floating heads, etc http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006.html#38 Is VIO mandatory? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006c.html#8 IBM 610 workstation computer http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006c.html#46 Hercules 3.04 announcement http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006i.html#27 Really BIG disk platters? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006i.html#41 virtual memory http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006j.html#11 The Pankian Metaphor http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006k.html#57 virtual memory http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006l.html#4 Google Architecture http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006q.html#50 Was FORTRAN buggy? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006r.html#14 50th Anniversary of invention of disk drives http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006r.html#15 50th Anniversary of invention of disk drives http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006r.html#18 50th Anniversary of invention of disk drives http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006r.html#20 50th Anniversary of invention of disk drives http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006r.html#21 50th Anniversary of invention of disk drives http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006r.html#23 50th Anniversary of invention of disk drives http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006r.html#30 50th Anniversary of invention of disk drives http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006r.html#31 50th Anniversary of invention of disk drives http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006r.html#33 50th Anniversary of invention of disk drives http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006r.html#36 REAL memory column in SDSF http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006s.html#23 Why magnetic drums was/are worse than disks ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006s.html#30 Why magnetic drums was/are worse than disks ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006s.html#32 Why magnetic drums was/are worse than disks ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006s.html#42 Ranking of non-IBM mainframe builders? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006s.html#45 Why magnetic drums was/are worse than disks ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006s.html#59 Why magnetic drums was/are worse than disks ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006t.html#18 Why magnetic drums was/are worse than disks ?
From: Jan Vorbrüggen on 9 Nov 2006 17:10 > You guy have never talked about Cray disk. 8^) > Much less the hardware aspects of their file systems. Yes. Or the thing TMC built - what was it called, The Data Vault? > They likely do more in house work as integration But we weren't talking the TLA's inhouse work, we are talking what Cray et al. did for them seemingly in the open. Even if it was just consulting - you can't just hide a few thousand person years from the bottom line. Look at the effect of GCHQ inventing asymmetric crytography...which was non-existent. Some years later, three guys in academia have the same idea, publish it, and now it's in everybody's online banking system. Just on principle, I don't like systems without feedback and control, like the spooks are. Jan
From: Glen Overby on 9 Nov 2006 17:08
Del Cecchi <cecchinospam(a)us.ibm.com> wrote: >We have disk drives because of them? Who does this refer to? Certainly >not CDC or Cray (company or man). I don't know what Eugene was refering to, but the Seagate facility in Shakopee, MN has its roots in the CDC disk drive division (spun off from CDC, as I recall, as Imprimis). Not that they _invented_ the disk drive, and they've certainly advanced well beyond what they were doing as CDC. |