Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #130158
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" |
| Date | 2018-05-04 15:19 +0200 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <pchmlh$ti0$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <N2BGC.55651$9t.43656@fx26.am4> <fl210fFp4q0U1@mid.individual.net> <hjVGC.71534$%L2.25238@fx40.am4> <pchhg4$rrs$1@dont-email.me> <K8YGC.117546$uL.12634@fx15.am4> |
On 04/05/18 14:14, bartc wrote: > On 04/05/2018 12:51, David Brown wrote: >> On 04/05/18 11:01, bartc wrote: >>> On 04/05/2018 04:05, Ian Collins wrote: >>>> The course is HPC, no one does HPC on Windows! >>> >>> >>> But it could be done? I mean if Windows runs on the same processor as >>> the Linux machine, what is different? >>> >> >> Desktop Windows does not run on the same hardware as Linux for HPC. Big >> Windows servers might run on hardware with multiple sockets, but you are >> surely not expecting students to have these massively expensive Windows >> licenses? > > This is about doing coursework. > > So a student's Linux netbook is OK, but a Windows netbook running the > same hardware isn't? > > Or is the coursework expected to be done on a super-computer? I have no idea how much coursework is expected to be tested on HPC machines rather than just the student's computer. I'd expect at least some of it will - and those HPC machines will be running Linux. > >> Linux has the support for clustering, for fast networking, >> for distributed file systems, for remote memory access, for process >> migrations, for non-uniform memory architectures, for hierarchies of >> processor cores, connections, and virtual cores, and everything else >> needed for high-performance computing on massively parallel systems. >> Windows does not - not even the biggest and most expensive server >> versions (which have a good deal more than the desktop versions). >> Linux >> supports multiple cpu architectures (MIPS and PPC are also popular in >> HPC, and other cores are sometimes used) - Windows does not. > > Wow, you know how to put the boot in, don't you? > > I've no idea what any of those buzz-words mean, but you clearly know > what you're talking about as you say it so confidently, so it must all > be true. I know a bit about HPC - but only in theory, not practice. Still, I know enough to give some of the reasons why in the current TOP500 list, /all/ of the systems run Linux, and Windows has never been above 1% share. (Cost is another reason, of course.) That does not mean that Windows is /never/ used in HPC - merely that it has an absolutely tiny market share. > > What exactly is the intention here, to make me crawl away with my tail > between my legs clutching my sad little Windows machine with its paltry > two cores, feeling incredibly small? No, I am merely trying to help you understand why a teacher on an HPC course would insist on coursework suitable for Linux, and consider Windows irrelevant. Since Windows is so totally irrelevant in this market, students would be expected to use Linux methods, APIs, libraries, etc., for handling networking, inter-process communication, memory management, process and thread handling, and so on. It would be pointless to try to look at Windows equivalents or even cross-platform abstractions. There are plenty of other areas where Windows dominates (and some where Macs dominate, and some for other uses). Someone teaching a course on games programming might reasonably insist that coursework be made for Windows and not Linux, for example. I am perfectly happy to use Windows when Windows is the most appropriate system for the task in hand - I use Windows /and/ Linux, with two machines in my office. But HPC is perhaps the most extreme example of where Linux is far more appropriate than Windows. > > But apparently, this is what you do. > > All my meagre experience tells me about Linux is that takes 1-2 minutes > to boot it from flash-drive, on a 0.7GHz 500MB 32-bit ARM (as used on > early Raspberry Pi), compared with the 1.5 seconds it took to load up > our CP/M clone from floppy on a 0.004GHz 0.062MB 8-bit Z80. > That is as helpful as noting the tricycle I had when I was 5 weighs a lot less than the car I have now. I have seen Linux systems that boot in a couple of seconds (to the point where they start looking for DHCP leases). And I've seen Windows systems that take 15 minutes to boot. So what? I could equally well give examples of fast Windows booting and slow Linux booting.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
"C Is Not a Low-level Language" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 16:21 -0500
"C Is Not a Low-level Language" Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 16:35 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 02:07 +0100
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" 1alvinalbrecht1@gmail.com - 2018-05-02 21:48 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 02:14 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 10:45 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 02:15 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 10:14 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-04 08:12 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 21:18 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-06 15:44 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-06 19:45 -0400
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-07 09:47 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 13:15 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-07 22:03 -0400
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 06:46 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-08 20:59 -0400
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-09 10:03 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 10:57 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 07:58 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-05-18 20:18 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-19 15:49 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 05:58 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 10:58 +0100
Some course material (was Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language") Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-05-03 14:41 +0000
Re: Some course material (was Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language") bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 16:02 +0100
Re: Some course material (was Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language") Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 10:25 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 09:17 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 17:39 +0100
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-04 11:40 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 10:59 +0100
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 03:18 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-04 14:59 +0000
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-04 08:57 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:24 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-07 12:27 -0500
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-04 11:15 -0500
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-04 18:13 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-04 11:45 -0500
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-04 17:31 +0000
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-05 11:10 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-05 11:48 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 17:57 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 00:11 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:28 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-06 15:48 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-05-08 20:01 +0000
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-08 13:20 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-08 20:34 +0000
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 06:15 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-08 02:12 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-05-04 10:42 +0000
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 13:44 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-04 18:11 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 17:47 +0100
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-04 10:57 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-05 14:57 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-04 15:05 +1200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 10:01 +0100
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 13:51 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 13:14 +0100
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 15:19 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 14:38 +0100
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-05-04 13:56 +0000
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 16:24 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-04 07:36 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-04 06:01 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-04 14:57 +0000
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-05 06:49 +1200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-05 10:55 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 10:10 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-04 04:51 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 14:37 +0200
csiph-web