Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!unido!tub!tmpmbx!netmbx!hase From: hase@netmbx.UUCP (Hartmut Semken) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: transputer Message-ID: <1826@netmbx.UUCP> Date: 9 May 88 13:46:43 GMT References: <28201@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> <4679@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <28623@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> Reply-To: hase@netmbx.UUCP (Hartmut Semken) Organization: netmbx Public Access Unix, Berlin Lines: 24 Keywords: process communication parallel Yeah! In article <28623@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> wallman-george@CS.YALE.EDU (Natuerlich!) writes: >Well if there is an OS, will there be a copy for every processor, will it >be in shared (slooow) memory or will there be a processor running os code No. I wonder if there is some literature about the T's there in USA; we have the c't, a magazine writng a lot about them. T's are different. All resources are completely local (memory, I/O ..) and the T communicates over a serials line (with "DMA" and 5/10/20 Megabit per second). All shared devices (hard disk) are local to one transputer (call it a "server" or whatever you like). >exclusively passing results to the other transputers. (all of the above >methods sound not tooo great to say the least). Thats it! Think object-oriented: procedures for an objekt are residing in the transputer, messages between the objects are passed through the links. The T's have no support for virtual memory; I do'nt know who needs it. My OS/9 or RTOS systems have no VM and I like them for not wasting processor time in system-code... >Same for shared resources like graphics, I/O and stuff. How ? Like above. Nothing is "shared", everything is local (!). out of time hase -- Hartmut Semken, Lupsteiner Weg 67, 1000 Berlin 37 hase@netmbx.UUCP I think, you may be right in what I think you're thinking. (Douglas Adams)