[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Beoboard idea

To: Mark van Doesburg <m.j.s.vandoesburg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Beoboard idea
From: Miguel Barreiro Paz <enano@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:18:58 +0100 (CET)
Cc: beowulf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, sa-beowulf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <199901271009.LAA00316@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Miguel Barreiro Paz <enano@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-beowulf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> 	>It's got two 500 MHz 21264s, each with 4 Megs of L2 cache and 6
> 	>* 64 bit PCI slots. OK, I'll have to convinve Simtec to produce
> 	>a carrier board with 64 bit PCI, but well..... you never
> 	>know....
	
	AFAIK you can plug a 32-bit PCI board on a 64-bit slot. Am I just
plain wrong? 

> 64-bit addressing would eliminate the scalability problem as we

	Yes, for the time being... :-) However, even for say 54 SA-110 (9
full carrier boards) a non-switched PCI backplane would become a
bottleneck for very communication-intensive codes, I suppose.

	Anyway - wouldn't we need 64-bit ARMs also to get in the
truckload-range number or CPUs?

Regards,

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Beoboard idea
  - From: Simon Thorpe

References:
- Re: Beoboard idea
  - From: Mark van Doesburg

Prev by Date: Re: Beoboard idea
Next by Date: Re: Beoboard idea
Previous by thread: Re: Beoboard idea
Next by thread: Re: Beoboard idea
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

This mailing list archive is a service of Copilotco.