Anne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > TROUT has never treated SIE as "just another assist." SIE has been a > basic part of our machine's design since the beginning. In fact, we > have chosen to put many functions into hardware instead of microcode > to pick up significant performance gains. For example, the 3081 takes > a significant amount of time to do certain types of guest-to-host > address translation because it does them in microcode, while TROUT > does them completely in hardware.
re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006j.html#27 virtual memory "811" (named after 11/78 publication date on the architecture documents) or 3081 was considered somewhat of a 155/158 follow-on machine ... being much more of a m'coded machine. "TROUT" or 3090 was considered somewhat of a 165/168 follow-on machine ... being much more of a hardwired machine. these were the days of processors getting bigger and bigger with much more effort being put into more processors in SMP configuration. they had created two positions, one in charge of "tightly-coupled" architecuture (SMP) and one in charge of "loosely-coupled" architecture (clusters). my wife got con'ed into taking the job in pok in charge of loosed-coupled architecture. she didn't last long ... while there, she did do done peer-coupled shared data architecture http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#shareddata which didn't see much uptake until sysplex ... except for the ims group doing ims hot-standby. part of the problem was she was fighting frequently with the communication's group, who wanted SNA/VTAM to be in charge of any signals leaving a processor complex (even those directly to another processor). one example was trouter/3088 ... she fought hard for hardware enhancements for full-duplex operation. there had been a previous "channel-to-channel" hardware which was half-duplex direct channel/bus communication between two processor complexes. 3088 enhanced this to provide connectivity to up to eight different processor complexes. sna was essentially a dumb terminal controller infrastructure. their reference to it as a "network" required other people in the organization to migrate to using the term "peer-to-peer network" to differentiate from the sna variety. of course, earlier, in the time-frame that sna was just starting out ... she had also co-authored a peer-to-peer networking architecture with Burt Moldow ... which was somewhat viewed as threatening to sna ... misc. past posts mentioning awp39: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004n.html#38 RS/6000 in Sysplex Environment http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004p.html#31 IBM 3705 and UC.5 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005p.html#8 EBCDIC to 6-bit and back http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005p.html#15 DUMP Datasets and SMS http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005p.html#17 DUMP Datasets and SMS http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005q.html#27 What ever happened to Tandem and NonStop OS ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005u.html#23 Channel Distances http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006h.html#52 Need Help defining an AS400 with an IP address to the mainframe anyway, in the trotter/3088 time-frame ... san jose had done a prototype vm/cluster implementation using a modified trotter/3088 with full-duplex protocols. however, before it was allowed to ship, they had to convert it to san operation. one of the cluster example was to fully "resynch" cluster operation of all the processors ... with took under a second using full-duplex protocols on the 3088 ... but the same operation took on the order of a minute using sna protocols and a half-duplex paradigm. we ran afoul again later with 3-tier architecture http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#3tier this was in the time-frame that the communications group was out pushing SAA ... a lot of which was an attempt to revert back to terminal emulation paradigm http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#emulation from that of client/server. we had come up with 3-tier architecture and was out pitching it to customer executives ... and the same time they were trying to revert 2-tier architecture back to dumb terminal emulation. then we did ha/cmp product http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp minor reference http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#13 which didn't make a lot of them happy either. -- Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
