Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!umd5!uflorida!gatech!hubcap!fpst From: fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu (Steve Stevenson-Moderator) Newsgroups: comp.parallel Subject: Shared mem vs msg passing Keywords: shared memory, message passing Message-ID: <1801@hubcap.UUCP> Date: 2 Jun 88 12:04:55 GMT Sender: fpst@hubcap.UUCP Lines: 31 Approved: parallel@hubcap.clemson.edu Approved: parallel@hubcap.clemson.edu Shannon Nelson> 1. Which architecture is easier to program for, and why; This is not a simple question since most folks do not have enough experience on both. Each has obvious advantages, but most of the criteria are performance ones. The operating system folks have the most experience and they probably can't tell you either. Languages are a problem here too. Read Greg Andrews article in the Jan 88 TOPLAS. > 2. Does #1 depend on the application, and why; Undoubtedly. Example: 'cubes can be added to ( FPS T-series goes from 8 to 4096 processors.) If the system is programmed distributively, then needs for memory (for e.g.) are easily met (Ah, hello Turing) by your company's comptroller. Not everything distributes easily - but we don't have the experience yet. > 3. Who makes the "best" machine of the two architectures, and why. I'll take the Fifth Amendment. But I personally think that this is not answerable without - pardon my math background - cost criteria for "best". Steve Stevenson fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu (aka D. E. Stevenson), fpst@clemson.csnet Department of Computer Science, comp.parallel Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906 (803)656-5880.mabell