On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:44 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> At the hardware level we do have message passing between a
> processor and the memory controller -- this is exactly the
> same as talking to a shared server and has the same issues of
> scaling etc. If you have very few clients, a single shared
> server is indeed a cost effective solution.

just to repeat myself in a context that hopefully makes things
clearer:  sometimes we don't admit it's a network.  and that's
not always a bad thing.

- erik

Yes, we abstract things so it doesn't look like it is... so we can have a programming model where we don't have to care about keeping all the distributed bits in sync.

However, I get the feeling that those abstractions, at any level, suffer from the same weaknesses.   Well I think that's why certain RISC instruction sets have instructions like eieio  anyway :-)

Dave