Hi Neal,
I haven't ignored your last post, I've been putting some time into
some research and reading around. I'm in the process of composing a
reply.
>> I see multiprogramming as bad as any real sense of
>> time is lost and all the problems of locking and synchronization arise.
>
> How do you d
Hi, Jason,
> I see multiprogramming as bad as any real sense of
> time is lost and all the problems of locking and synchronization arise.
How do you deal with the following scenario:
Consider a file server: it must handle multiple simultaneous
requests; it has shared meta-data needs to be update
At Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:56:31 +,
Jason Cozens wrote:
> My main point is that processors should not be kept busy when it leads
> to a bad programming model. This bad programming model as I see it is
> multiprogramming.
What is different about EQP that it, unlike multiprogramming, results
in a g
Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> It seems like you've put a lot of thought into this and come up with
> some good ideas. Thanks for sharing them with us!
>
Thanks for the response. Sorry for any delay in replying but I work for
a bank and during the day I have no way of sending personal
Neal H. Walfield, le Thu 30 Oct 2008 13:11:58 +0100, a écrit :
> > The major problem is how to manage the pool of processors. This can be
> > implemented by doing away with the centralised scheduler and letting
> > each processor manage itself. The problem is now really one of resource
> > allocati
