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