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)