wdonze...@gmail.com (William Donzelli) writes: > Was this effort in some way related, or in competition with, the UC > series of controllers? Quite a lot of machines used those internally, > and they even popped out with the 8100 series (the mainframes that > have fallen into the memory hole).
re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#72 zEC12, and previous generations, "why?" type question - GPU computing http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#74 zEC12, and previous generations, "why?" type question - GPU computing http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#77 zEC12, and previous generations, "why?" type question - GPU computing http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#79 zEC12, and previous generations, "why?" type question - GPU computing uc controllers were much simpler, earlier (and underpowered) processors, 3705, 8100, service processor for 3081, etc. early on before 3705 was announced there was a strong effort at the science center to get cpd to use peachtree for 3705 (instead of uc) ... peachtree was much more powerful processor and was used in series/1. UCs would have been part of the internal microprocessors replaced by 801, the 801 replacement effort was circa 1980 ... but for various reasons the efforts floundered (the as/400 quickly did a cisc chip to replace the planned 801 ... but in the 90s eventually migrated to 801/risc power/pc). The followon to 4331/4341 (aka 4361/4381) were suppose to be iliad (801/risc) ... but there was a white paper (that I contributed to) that shot that down that effort (even tho I was working on 801/risc for other things). In the wake of the failure of those efforts in the earlier 80s, some number of 801/risc chip engineers left and showup working on risc efforts at other vendors (I've posted various old email from people worried that I might be following in their footsteps). bo evans had asked my wife to audit 8100 and shortly later it was effectively canceled (although continued to linger on for quite some time) ... has some amount about UC also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_8100 old email referencing mit lisp machine group asking ibm for 801 processor ... and evans offering 8100 instead: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006o.html#email790711 later one of the baby bells did a NCP & VTAM (both) emulation on series/1 ... and outboard of mainframe ... carried sna traffic over real networking infrastructure (mainframe vtams were told all resources were cross-domain ... which was actually simulated outboard in redundant infrastructure). I did a deal with the baby bell to turn it out as an IBM product ... as well as concurrently porting from series/1 to rios (801/risc processor used in rs/6000). Because I knew that communication group would be out for my head ... I cut a deal with another baby bell to underwrite all of my development costs ... with no strings attached (their business case was that they would totally recover all my costs within the first year just replacing 37x5/NCP with new product). The internal politics that then happened could only be described as truth is stranger than fiction. part of presentation that I did at sna architecture review board meeting in raleigh, fall of 1986: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#67 System/1 ? part of presentation by baby bell at series/1 common meeting http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#70 Series/1 as NCP past posts mentioning 801/risc, iliad, romp, rios, fort knox, power, power/pc, etc http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#801 In the previous reference about using large number of 370 3mip roman (three) chip sets in racks ... the 801 chip was blue iliad ... which was first 32bit 801 chip ... and design for 20mips ... although it was never put into production (and it was a very large "hot" chip). Biggest design problem & bottleneck was increasing problem with getting all the heat out of the rack as ever increasing numbers of chips were packed into the rack. old post http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004m.html#17 mainframe and microprocessors mentioning series of documents that I did on the roman/iliad rack cluster design RMN.DD.001, Jan 22, 1985 RMN.DD.002, Mar 5, 1985 RMN.DD.003, Mar 8, 1985 RMN.DD.004, Apr 16, 1985 old email discussing 801, risc, romp, rios http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#801 there was huge amount of communication group FUD about my 3725 numbers used in comparison/presentation ... which I pulled directly from HONE 3725 "configurator" ... HONE configurations (world-wide virtual machine based online sales&marketing) were used by IBM sales&marketing for configuring hardware. In the case of 3725 configurator ... performance modeling had official communication group sanction. misc. past posts mentioning HONE http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hone one of my hobbies was enhanced production operating systems for internal datacenters ... HONE was (also) one of my long time customers since cp67/cms days in the early 70s. that hone was actually virtual machine based was obfuscated from most field people. There would periodically be branch manager promoted into hdqtr executive position ... that included HONE ... and would be horrified to find out that it was all virtual machine based and not MVS. They would figure that they could make their career & repudiation in the company by migrating HONE to MVS. All the resources of HONE would be dedicated for several months on a MVS migration until it was evident that it wouldn't work. Things would be quietly covered up until the next branch manager promoted into the executive position (and an attempt at another disasterous port was made). Finally they took to threatening HONE with they had to stop using my enhanced operating systems ... because what would happen if I was hit by a bus. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
