Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
→Questions: more on Flynn |
||
Line 46:
:Ramu, for the love of god, read the [[Parallel computing]] article before recommending we remove links from this template that obviously belong. (I wrote parallel computing article, it's completely technically accurate to the best of my knowledge, and it's a featured article). You can't "do" Flynn's taxonomy - therefore, it is not a methodology. It's a system of categorization, based empirically on the kinds of technologies that were prevalent in the 70s when he devised it. And it is most certainly related to parallel computing - it's the pedagogical basis for teaching parallel computing. I learned about it during my first week in my parallel architecture class. That's what it's relevant here. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 02:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Yes, Flynn's taxonomy is one of the most fundamental concepts of parallel computing theory. NUMA, COMA and distributed/shared memory are also very much parallel computing concepts. On the other hand, LIFO and FIFO are very basic concepts in computer science and don't belong here. MIMO and SISO are terminology used in RF electronics, so I don't know why you mention them here. Maybe you are confusing them with MIMD and SIMD?! [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]] ([[User talk:Letdorf|talk]]) 09:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC).
::: Ramu50, as I mentioned on the [[talk:CPU Technologies|CPU Technologies talk page]], you misunderstand what Flynn's taxonomy is about. It is not describing "technologies" that a designer might use or not. It is a classification system: You can work on one or multiple instruction streams, and you can work on one or multiple data sets at a time. That gives four possibilities and there aren't any others; ''every'' CPU or multi-CPU complex must fit into one of these. Flynn's taxonomy is a useful model for analyzing and describing ''any'' CPU. [[User:Jeh|Jeh]] ([[User talk:Jeh|talk]]) 16:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
| |||