From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id e6187bf4 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 23:03:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 8DB66A17D8; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:03:53 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4AFEA17C2; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:03:16 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=sTLo/AcG; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 4A92FA17C2; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:03:13 +1000 (AEST) X-Greylist: delayed 482 seconds by postgrey-1.35 at minnie.tuhs.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:03:12 AEST Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1018A17C0 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:03:12 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BAEFEF574; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 18:55:09 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=content-type :mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=sasl; bh= VFJGNfnBNMylYKTl55av8rLMTvc=; b=sTLo/AcGmaHr3Va8DxmI3LGNAdLHX+Yn kBpYp1uvXQVUay+aDWKX/cgE+VYvloLqVMvdkHHfWLO0ryO6oFnQ07imD3/M+2Ik raIMuYFT6rXOhnxDvI0EphPqNkzx6zlqNZJGukPlUkJT4HWA/z3XXDGpPDulmyzR /saragHxZMU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=content-type :mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; q=dns; s= sasl; b=hpQq6EgQUd2yRqfjxsTyXwlDlOXjaC0FrYjul0hHZpFFV+mGlAPsy0OP uVbutN421r13jM/RfIR8lYLxC6ePZaiqGHq4GhKpGiWOM6pKVczPdP5xzyiBA8wy yhfjN+GzC54qFZykoYQchGH0ZXCP5rNmduAVIegzbwuBXQk9RrY= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91D67EF573; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 18:55:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.86.184] (unknown [58.173.239.126]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D8232EF570; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 18:55:08 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: David Arnold X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15F79) In-Reply-To: <20180619204536.GA91748@server.rulingia.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:55:05 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20180615152542.E1EC918C08C@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <20180619204536.GA91748@server.rulingia.com> To: Peter Jeremy X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D0ACC726-7413-11E8-80CA-0DFB1A68708C-29049682!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Subject: Re: [TUHS] core X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" Does the screen count as I/O? I=E2=80=99d suggest that it=E2=80=99s just that the balance is (intentionall= y) quite different. If you squint right, a GPU could look like a channelize= d I/O controller.=20 d > On 20 Jun 2018, at 06:45, Peter Jeremy wrote: >=20 >> On 2018-Jun-18 10:25:03 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote: >> Apropos of the 'my iPhone has more power than our System-360/50, but it h= as nowhere near the sheer I/O throughput of a mainframe' comment: there's ob= viously no doubt that devices like phones (and laptops, desktops &c) are I/O= -starved compared to serious machines, but comparing the performance of an i= Phone and a 360/50 seems to be a matter of choosing how fine the dust you wa= nt the 360/50 to be ground into should be. >>=20 >> The 360/50 could, I think, transfer 4 bytes every 2 microseconds to/from m= ain memory, which is 20Mb/s. I've just measured my iPhone (6): it can do ab= out 36Mb/s ... over WiFi, backed by a 4G cellular connection >=20 > One way of looking at this actually backs up the claim: An iPhone has mayb= e > 3 orders of magnitude more CPU power than a 360/50 but only a couple of > times the I/O bandwidth. So it's actually got maybe 2 orders of magnitude= > less relative I/O throughput. >=20 > --=20 > Peter Jeremy