Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!aries!mcdonald
From: mcdonald@aries.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: *big iron*
Message-ID: <1989Sep28.223205.10991@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 28 Sep 89 22:32:05 GMT
References: <22488@cup.portal.com> <280001@hpdml93.HP.COM> <9911@venera.isi.edu> <34298@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Sender: news@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Reply-To: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald)
Organization: ^
Lines: 17

>Thinking Machines' Data Vault is a fine example of the right way to
>build an IO system these days.  Instead of using limited production
>high performance drives, you build a highly parallel system using
>the same mass production drives you can buy for workstations and throw
>in a SECDED controller while you are at it.  The system has 72 drives
>implementing a 64 bit wide data path with one bit per drive.  Using current

I remember with great fondness a similar setup on the Illiac IV. It was
so unreliable when that machine first got (sort-of) running my program,
which didn't use it for hours, got to run while others were waiting 
for the farm to be fixed.

SECDED 	sounds OK for reading - but what about writing? Don't they need
to have an extra disk to take the data that should go to a sick disk
being replaced?

Doug McDonald