On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Ronald G. Minnich wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat, 4 Mar 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
> > >
> > > Ach! Not another DSM project :-( Don't do it. There's already a DSM
> > [dsm horror story]
> I swore I would avoid this argument but ...
> look, there's DSMs and there's DSMs. And there's different types of
> applications. I've done a fair number of parallel apps and there are cases
> where you can use DSM, and cases where you can't and you use message
> passing. I can point to failures with both models.
> You want to see failures with DSM, you'll find 'em, because people do
> stupid things with them. That doesn't automatically condemn the
> technology, it just means it's not universal (what is?).
> You want to see a few successes, well, look at my web page and check the
Don't get all bent out of shape. The point is that if you don't need
DSM (i.e., Customer requirement), it's not a very good idea to use it.
There are many "papers", mostly written by those who "finally got
something to work...", that will show the greatness of practically
anything. Reference: "Stockholm Syndrome".
Penguin : Linux version 2.3.41 on an i686 machine (800.63 BogoMips).
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 21:00:27 EST