Re: [OT: This is not the thread you're looking for. You can go about your business. Move along, move along.]

From: Simon G Best (s.g.best_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 07/23/03 

Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:34:09 +0000 (UTC)

Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>
> As I said, this is a load-balancing problem. The issue
> is well-known in CS. How could a machine both be
> 'saturated' and run at 4% of its peak performance?
> There are known problems of getting good performance
> in parallel computing that drive down the average
> figure in comparison to the case of mono-processor.
> But that extreme 4% is in my view clearly due to the
> exclusiveness of the class of problems that are allowed
> (for whatever reasons) to be run on the hardware.

On what is your view based? The 4% figure could be due to the nature of
the problems for which that supercomputer is intended. If so, the
"exclusiveness of the class of problems that are allowed" could very
well be *justified* by that 4% figure! (But you won't understand that.)

> Hmm, I meant 'self-contradiction' in the sense that
> one contradicts 'oneself' though statements at different
> occassions that are not in agreement with one another.

So, it might be a good idea to read back what you've written before
hitting the 'send' button (something you've been advised many times
before). Otherwise, you might post something like this:-

> Anyway, was you 'accusation' that what I wrote in
> the one post didn't agree with what I wrote in some
> previous post correct or not?
>
> M. K. Shen

I had to read that a few times to make sense of it. (Why has my
observation of an apparent contradiction been raised to the status of an
"'accusation'"? No, don't bother to answer that.)

Anyway...

news:3F1708A2.C39BF853@t-online.de (in which you said, "The problem
is, as far as I am aware, commonly one of management.")

news:3F1AFF48.65DA4D9D@t-online.de (in which you said, "It was not my
intention to say that the management positions adopted by the
super-computing centres that lead to poor utility of resources are
inherently incorrct or bad.")

So, when I said, "? Your previous posts in this thread clearly
indicated otherwise," it was because "Your previous posts in this thread
[had] clearly indicated otherwise."

In future, you can sort out your own, unnecessary self-confusions.

Simon

Quantcast