HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: levine@jadoube.mcs.anl.gov (David Levine)
Subject: Grand Challenges in Computer Simulation
Apparently-To: comp-parallel@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:17:04 GMT

                Announcement and Call for Papers 

                   HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING 
             Grand Challenges in Computer Simulation 
      (Part of the 1993 International Simulators Conference) 

                          Sponsored by 
               The Society for Computer Simulation  

                    March 29-April 1, 1993 
             Key Bridge Marriott * Arlington, Virginia 

The 1993 International Simulators Conference will feature a special
Symposium devoted to the impact of High Performance Computing on
Computer Simulation.  Topics to be addressed may include (but are
not limited to): (1) high performance computing applications; (2)
parallel algorithms and numerical methods; (3) methodologies to 
exploit HPC architectures.  Prospective authors are invited to 
submit abstracts describing their work in these areas. 

       Areas of interest include (but are not limited to) : 

     * Models of fluid dynamic behavior for 3-D flow fields 
     * Combustion system simulations 
     * Predictions of weather, climate, and global changes 
     * Models of turbulence in fluid flows 
     * Computational solid mechanics applications 
     * Nuclear reactor safety analysis 
     * Computational ocean sciences and systems 
     * Nuclear fusion applications 

                            KEY DATES: 

  Three (3) copies of 300-word abstracts  
OR (preferred) a full paper for review 
to session organizers  . . . . . . . . . . . BY OCTOBER 15, 1992

  Notification of acceptance and author 
kits mailed  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BY NOVEMBER 15, 1992

  Camera-ready copy submitted to Society 
headquarters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BY DECEMBER 31, 1992


Only previously unpublished works will be considered and, if 
accepted, will be published in the proceedings of the conference. 

Submit abstracts/papers with authors' complete addresses, phone,

fax, and e-mail for consideration to: 

Dr. Adrian Tentner                     Symposium on HPCC 
Argonne National Laboratory            c/o Society for Computer 
9700 S. Cass Avenue                      Simulation International
Argonne, IL 60439                      P.O. Box 17900 
e-mail: tentner@pepper.ra.anl.gov      San Diego, CA 92177 USA 

Newsgroups: comp.parallel
From: lukose@cm.deakin.OZ.AU (Dickson Lukose)
Subject: Seeking info on Prolog running on transputers
Organization: Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:21:26 GMT



I am looking for a version of Prolog that runs on transputers.

If you know af any, could you please email.

Any pointers will be most appreciated.

Dickson Lukose
Deakin University

lukose@deakin.oz.au
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Subject: Re: CSP to STRAND/Parlog
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 07:55:11 GMT

From: Steven Ericsson Zenith <zenith@kai.com>
>In article <1992Jul9.091354.25034@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk
>(Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>
>> There are close parallels between CSP and the committed choice
>> concurrent logic languages like Strand and Parlog.
>
>There are? I can guess but I'd be interested to hear your rationale for
>this particular parallel and why it's any closer than, say, a functional
>language or even FORTRAN ;-).

See, for example, Graem Ringwood's paper "Parlog86 and the
Dining Logicians" in CACM 31,1 (Jan. '88), or the more recent
paper by Cohen, Ringwood and myself "Logical Occam" in the book
"Implementations of Distributed Prolog", editors Peter Kacsuk
and Michael J.Wise, publisher Wiley (out last month) If you are
not even vaguely aware of the links between the committed choice
logic programming languages and CSP, you need to find out more about
the former. If you think that Strand or Parlog are basically
"parallel Prologs", you are completely wrong. Many people who
program in them, such as myself, think of them more in CSP-like
terms than in Prolog-like terms.

>> In fact
>> part of my current work is considering methods of translating
>> from CSP to Strand/Parlog, and there are other people at QMW
>> who are working on automated reasoning in these languages.
>
>Strand/Parlog to CSP might make sense but the reverse just doesn't seem
>very useful to me. There are programs written in CSP that will benefit
>from such a transformation? What's the rationale here?

CSP is a specification notation, Strand is an industrial-standard
executable language which runs on a variety of multiprocessor
architectures. I would have thought the usefulness of the
transformation is obvious.

Matthew Huntbach
From: primeaux@alphard.cs.utk.edu (David Primeaux)
Newsgroups: comp.parallel
Subject: Anyone tried prof on intel RX
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:02:16 GMT
Reply-To: primeaux@alphard.cs.utk.edu (David Primeaux)
Organization: Computer Science Dept, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

I am trying to identify bottlenecks in some code
written for the intel RX hypercube.  I thought that
using prof might be a good idea, but I am only
able to generate an uninteresting profile of what
happens on the host.  Does anyone have any suggestions?
Newsgroups: comp.parallel
From: F68D000 <F68D@UNB.CA>
Subject: Which is the best hardware option for parallel processing?
Apparently-To: uunet!comp-parallel@uunet.uu.net
Organization: University of New Brunswick
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:22:18 GMT


   I need someone to help me to clarify the following basic questions
since I have not much knowledge on parallel processing.

  Background of the questions:
  The questions are from a project which requires us to use multi
transputers for parallel processing.  Also, both C and Prolog languages
will be used in this project.  Every transputer is supposed to run
a module developed using either C or Prolog.  The main program should
be able to run under a Window envirement.  My questions are about
selection of Hardware for this project.

1. May I use PC (386 or 486) to communicate with transputers so that
   the main program developed in C run under the MS windows 3.1 can
   communicate with other modules, developed in either C or Prolog,
   which are run in transputers?  If yes, what should I buy in order
   to perform the task (assuming MS windows, C, Prolog,and PC computers
   are available)?
2. The second question is same as the first one except that the
   operating system is UNIX runing in a PC machine.  Of course, the
   window should be either X-windows or Motif.

Can you suggest me some papers or books to read in terms of the above
questions?

Thanks in advance.

Heping

P.S.
returning email addresses:
   f68d@unb.ca
   thomposn@unb.ca


Newsgroups: comp.parallel
From: mccurley@cs.sandia.gov (Kevin S. McCurley)
Subject: Re: Description of C*
Apparently-To: comp-parallel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Organization: Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 04:21:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.134937.5098@hubcap.clemson.edu> peteh@cs.rhbnc.ac.uk (PeterR.Hoare) writes:
>Could anybody tell me where I can get a good reference to the new
>version of C* which is being proposed as a ANSI standard parallel C.

OH NOOOOOOO!

Perhaps I have not kept up with what is happening with data parallel
C, but this smells of a potential disaster.  For three years I have
been disgusted with the lack of any reasonably flexible model of
data-parallel C.  I am not an expert in computer languages, but I
write considerable amount of code for parallel machines.  For three
years I kept thinking that if I just waited until a reasonable
replacement came along for the CM-2, then maybe we would see some
reasonable data-parallel version of C come along to replace C*.
Numerous times I have thought about writing some application in C*,
only to realize that it would be severely limited by the lack of
parallel pointers.  In my opinion adopting C* as the base for
data-parallel C is ludicrous, since it is far too restrictive.  C* was
designed years ago for a machine whose processors were incapable of
doing indirect addressing, and required every processor to have an
identical memory map.  It has some nice features, but it has a long
way to go until it will be powerful and flexible enough to allow
people to parallelize existing serial code in a natural way. 

I would hope that any new standard would get us beyond this, and look
forward to what programmers will want to use in the future.  In my
opinion it is far too early to adopt such a standard, and the parallel
computing community (including TMC) would be better served by letting
data parallel C mature more before pushing for a standard.  In the
meantime there is a glaring need for more work to be done on this
subject.

I am simply a scientist who has longed for a data-parallel C language
that would allow me to express my algorithms in a straightforward and
efficient manner.  I am not a language expert, so it is possible that
I do not understand all of the issues involved.  On the other hand,
you don't have to be a racehorse breeder to recognize a horse with no
teeth and a potbelly.

Kevin McCurley
Sandia National Laboratories




Newsgroups: comp.parallel
From: bradley@marley.think.com (Bradley Kuszmaul)
Subject: Re: Could I compete the low-end CM5 with multiple SPARCstations?
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
	<1992Jul23.174946.21554@hubcap.clemson.edu>
	<1992Jul23.204237.4492@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 25 Jul 92 09:34:07

In article <1992Jul23.204237.4492@hubcap.clemson.edu> henrik@mpci.llnl.gov (Henrik Klagges) writes:

>  Is it a fat tree network ?

Yes.  I'll take this opportunity to plug our paper describing the networks
of the Connection Machine CM-5:

Charles E. Leiserson, Zahi S. Abuhamdeh, David C. Douglas, Carl R. Feynman,
  Mahesh N. Ganmukhi, Jeffrey V. Hill, W. Daniel Hillis, Bradley C.
  Kuszmaul, Margaret A. St. Pierre, David S. Wells, Monica C. Wong,
  Shaw-Wen Yang, and Robert Zak.
The Network Architecture of the Connection Machine CM-5.
Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Algorithms '92, june 1992, San Diego.

 -Bradley

Newsgroups: comp.parallel
From: Andrew.Stratton@cm.cf.ac.uk (Andrew F Stratton)
Subject: HELP - software needed to run MIMD like programs on an IBM PC
Keywords: MIMD, IBM PC
Organization: University of Wales College of Cardiff
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 15:23:23 +0100
X-Mailer: Cardiff Computing Maths PP Mail Open News Gateway

	I have recently purchased a 486/33, and would like to run a MIMD
simulator to allow me to develop some code for Meiko and nCUBE 2.  I am
not worried about timings - just the ability to somehow communicate between
different virtual processors.  This would allow me to work on algorithms at
home.

	Does anyone know how I can do this - I know that I can run PICL under
'mpsim' running under UNIX (probaly Linus if it works) - but this seems a
bit contorted when I don't want that level of 'realism'.

	Any ideas welcome - Thanks in advance,
	  Andy Stratton.
-- 
	Parallel Processing Support Officer
	University of Wales College of Cardiff

	email:stratton@uk.ac.cf.cm

Newsgroups: comp.parallel
From: matt@waikato.ac.nz
Subject: More on CSP PDs or PS's
News-Moderator: Approval required for posting to comp.parallel
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
Date: 17 Jul 92 10:29:49 +1200

There seems to be some confusion about my last posting.  Several people
have responded by pointing out that CSP is not a programming language, but
is used for specifying or verifying algorithms.  I am interested in a
form of static checking of parallel programs, and for generality I am 
developing my ideas using CSP so that hopefully any parallel program written
in a language which uses principles outlined in CSP could be checked using my 
methods.  
  If there are nontrivial process descriptions or program specifications
written in CSP out there, I would like to know about them and how to obtain
them so I could test my ideas.


Matt

Newsgroups: comp.parallel
From: Steven Zenith <zenith@kai.com>
Subject: Re: CSP to STRAND/Parlog
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 10:15:31 -0500

In article <1992Jul20.075511.17628@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk
Matthew Huntbach writes:

> If you think that Strand or Parlog are basically
> "parallel Prologs", you are completely wrong. Many people who
> program in them, such as myself, think of them more in CSP-like
> terms than in Prolog-like terms.

I'm pleased to hear it, I don't dispute that a parallel between CSP and
Strand or Parlog can be drawn - but you don't answer my question: why is the
parallel between committed choice concurrent logic languages closer than any
other (say, CSP and functional or concurrent imperative languages)?

> >> In fact
> >> part of my current work is considering methods of translating
> >> from CSP to Strand/Parlog,

> ... What's the rationale here?
> 
> I would have thought the usefulness of the
> transformation is obvious.

It wasn't clear from your earlier posts that execution was your primary
interest. I'm still not sure that if I was considering a target language for
the execution of CSP scripts that STRAND or Parlog would be a good choice. So,
we should clarify what you are interested in when executing CSP scripts. Is
performance an important issue? Behavioral correctness? Perhaps you are
deriving something from the execution of the program that you can't derive
from static analysis? etc..

Steven Ericsson Zenith
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily those of KAI.

Newsgroups: comp.parallel
From: sean@sparcy.hhmi (Sean Smith)
Subject: Re: Distributed Data Bases
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 11:11:11 EDT


	The most familiar distributed database system I know of are
the products of Teradata (now owned by NCR). Teradata machines consist
of a number of Intel processors linked in a proprietary "Dynamic Y-Net"
scheme. The best literature on the Teradata is in last months CACM.

	Note: the Teradata machine is specifically a Relational-Database
machine, using SQL.

	The above information is not much, but the number of articles I
have on the machine are not present. Companies using Teradata's include 
Citicorp and AT&T.

	One aquaintance who may be of more useful information is
Aurea Andino, former manager of the Teradata Project at Citicorp. She
can be reached via internet at 
	73700.1636@compuserve.com.

	Unfortunaetly I am not familiar with other architectures, so any infor	mation will be welcome.

					Good Luck
						Sean Smith
						sean@adamsgw.bio.sunysb.edu

Newsgroups: comp.parallel
From: sinkwitz@ifi.unizh.ch (Rainer Sinkwitz)
Subject: Re: Yellow Pages and PVM on a Silicon
Keywords: PVM, Yellow Pages, Silicon
Organization: University of Zurich, Department of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 13:45:13 GMT


In article <1992Jul30.200850.16168@hubcap.clemson.edu>, henrik@mpci.llnl.gov (Henrik Klagges) writes:
> I wonder if it is worth to install PVM (parallel virtual machine). It is 
> supposed to have a lot of limitations (scalability over 10 machines, 
> debugging, &others I can dig up if interest is there). At least this 
> was the conclusion of a summer student that did a long evaluation/test
> project with PVM here at LLNL.

PVM is one of the most widely used platforms for heterogeneous distributed
computing. 10 machines is definitely no limit and now that PVM got
TCP/IP connections it really is a joy. Also "printf"-style debugging 
works well since the output is send back to the output of the master 
daemon and each line prefixed by the machine name.

I'd be interested in you list of limitations. 

-- 
oooooo    oooo  Rainer Sinkwitz, Multimedia Lab         sinkwitz@ifi.unizh.ch
 $   $   $   "  University of Zurich, Switzerland        VOICE +41-1-257-4346
 $"$$    """"$  Inst.f.Informatik, Winterthurerstr. 190   FAX +41-1-363-00-35
o$o "$o  $ooo"  CH-8057-Z\"urich

Newsgroups: comp.parallel
From: reinhard@rice.edu (Reinhard von Hanxleden)
Subject: Request for Fortran kernels/codes solving irregular problems
Originator: reinhard@isergina.cs.rice.edu
Keywords: irregular, fortran
Reply-To: reinhard@rice.edu (Reinhard von Hanxleden)
Organization: Rice University
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 23:16:07 GMT


We are looking for codes which solve IRREGULAR PROBLEMS, i.e.,
applications which typically involve INDIRECT ARRAY ACCESSES and have
non-trivial communication patterns when parallelized.  

"We" is a group from ICASE and Rice working on compiler support for
parallelizing irregular problems.  One major goal is to automatically
place calls to the PARTI primitives, developed by Saltz et al. for
efficiently communicating sets of indirectly accessed data.  We have
developed a data flow framework for aiding this process, and we would
like to evaluate its effectiveness and generality with an as diverse
set of problems as possible.  The applications we have been working
with so far include a multigrid code and molecular dynamics codes
(CHARMM, GROMOS).

Any contributions (per e-mail to reinhard@rice.edu) would be
appreciated: kernels and/or full codes, in sequential and/or
parallelized form, preferrably FORTRAN.  

Thank you very much,

Reinhard v. Hanxleden

Center for Research on Parallel Computation
Dept. of Computer Science, Rice University
P.O. Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251
(713) 527-8101x2391
reinhard@rice.edu

-- 


--Reinhard

Newsgroups: comp.parallel
From: sivap-m@sybil.cs.buffalo.edu (Muhunthan Sivapragasam)
Subject: Request for reference info ( automatic partitioning )
Apparently-To: comp-parallel@cis.ohio-state.edu
Originator: sivap-m@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo/Comp Sci
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 07:24:35 GMT

	I would like to get some references about automatic partitioning
of programs for parallel execution. I will be thankful if someone can
give a list of references.

							--muhunthan
-- 
							S. Muhunthan

Newsgroups: comp.parallel
From: saroff@msc.edu (Stephen Saroff--Minnesota Supercomputer Center)
Subject: Cubics
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 10:21:35 CDT

Does anyone have any information about the Cubics system?  

I am told that it has mechanisms for distributing data across parallel
architectures, making for a more easily useful means of setting up programs.

I understand that it is closely tied to Express, is it in fact a bundled
product.

If anyone has some experience of information, I would appreciate hearing of
it.  I will summarize.

     +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
	Stephen Saroff	 			<saroff@msc.edu>
	Minnesota Supercomputer Center		1200 Washington Ave S.
	Minneapolis, MN 55415           	612/626 1854	

Newsgroups: comp.parallel
From: noh@cs.umd.edu (Sam Hyuk Noh)
Subject: Sun 4/670MP
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Distribution: usa
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:29:15 GMT


Is anyone out there willing to send me some technical
documents on the Sun 4/670MP.
If so, here is my address:

Sam H. Noh
AV Williams Bldg.
Dept. of Computer Science
University of Maryland
Colleg Park, MD 20742

I also have some questions about the machine.

1. Is it possible to execute a single job (process)
 on multiple number of processors it has?

2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, then 
how does one do this? 
	If the answer is no,
then is there a way to take advantage of the
extra processors to shorten the execution time
(eg forking ...)?

3. If we need to explicitly fork processes
how is this done (a concrete example would help)?
Then, if we were to measure the execution time
how do we make sure that the process that we
forked terminated?


Thanks.

-- sam noh (noh@cs.umd.edu)


Newsgroups: comp.parallel
From: henrik@mpci.llnl.gov (Henrik Klagges)
Subject: Re: Could I compete the low-end CM5 with multiple SPARCstations?
Organization: Clemson University
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:22:02 GMT


grendel@fen.arc.nasa.gov (Raymond E. Suorsa) writes:
>The price of a TMC CM5 is in its fat tree network... which is very
>fast compared to ethernet, or FDDI.

Is it a fat tree network ?


--

Cheers, Henrik
MPCI at LLNL
IBM Research

Newsgroups: comp.parallel
From: Andrew.Stratton@cm.cf.ac.uk (Andrew F Stratton)
Subject: Re: Description of C*
Organization: University of Wales College of Cardiff
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 10:01:48 +0100
X-Mailer: Cardiff Computing Maths PP Mail Open News Gateway

In article <1992Jul23.134937.5098@hubcap.clemson.edu> peteh@cs.rhbnc.ac.uk (PeterR.Hoare) writes:
|Could anybody tell me where I can get a good reference to the new
|version of C* which is being proposed as a ANSI standard parallel C.

	Can someone confirm if this is true - ANSI with FORTRAN 90 have produced
a standard for parallel and sequential compilers - allowing the sequential
machines to optimise calculations in a different way.  I would have thought
that ANSI would do exactly the same with a new ANSI C standard - and say call it
ANSI C 92 (or some such).

	Also - what is the chance of ANSI proposing a standard for C++ that
would also allow parallel 'constructs' - and can we expect it before 1994.

	Thanks in advance,
	  Andy Stratton.
-- 
	Parallel Processing Support Officer
	University of Wales College of Cardiff

	email:stratton@uk.ac.cf.cm

Newsgroups: comp.parallel
From: bri@black-coffee.ai.mit.edu (Brian Totty)
Subject: ??? Parallelizing Barnes-Hut N-Body Code ???
Organization: MIT AI Laboratory, Computer Architecture Group
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:56:06 GMT


	What is the state-of-the-art in parallelizing the Barnes-Hut
	N-Body code?  This is the code that uses the center of mass
	approximations for multiple bodies in a recursive subdivision
	style.

	I coded up this algorithm several years ago, but did a naive
	tree construction which limited the gains of the parallelism.

	Could people send me some references to more recent attempts at
	parallelizing this code, especially dealing with the tree construction
	and update?

						Thanks Very Much!


						--- Bri

   /                       Brian Totty             o o
  /__  __  o     Department of Computer Science     o  
 /  / /   /          1304 W. Springfield Ave       \_/  "We have corn in
/__/ /   /               Urbana, IL 61801                Massachusetts too!"
                        totty@cs.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: comp.parallel
From: grendel@fen.arc.nasa.gov (Raymond E. Suorsa)
Subject: Re: Could I compete the low-end CM5 with multiple SPARCstations?
Apparently-To: comp-parallel@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Reply-To: grendel@windchime.arc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Ames
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:30:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.134928.5014@hubcap.clemson.edu>, lycmit@x1sun6.ccl.itri.org.tw (Yin-Chih Lin) writes:

|> I am curious, if I connect 32 SPARCstation 10 model 30 (33MHz, SuperSPARC
|> module with 86.1 MIPS - Sun Micro adverted!?) computers (loosely-coupled
|> MIMD multicomputers?) either by Ethernet, ISDN or FDDI with the multi-
|> thread OS and might use facilities from Linda-like distributed data
|> structures. Is it possible for me to obtain the reasonable performance
|> when compared with the 32-node TMC CM5 (SIMD machine)?
|> 
more stuff

I have use a network of SparcStation2's as a loosely-coupled MIMD
machine.  My application (obstacle detection and ranging using machine
vision for guidance applications) would saturate the ethernet with 6
to 8 machines (32 nodes just would slow it down).  If your application
doesn't need much or any internode communication AND it needs A LOT of
computation time than a network of 32 Sparc10s would give good
performance.  As soon as the computation time nears the data transport
time (which happens pretty fast with ethernet) the network will
saturate.

The price of a TMC CM5 is in its fat tree network... which is very
fast compared to ethernet, or FDDI.


  __o   Ray Suorsa,
  \<,   grendel@windchime.arc.nasa.gov,
()/ ()  NASA/Ames (415)604-6334

Newsgroups: comp.parallel