There you go. Not to doubt what you say, but we definitely had the love seat yet we also had a tank of vaguely flourescing green liquid. Maybe we had some intermediate state, the cray-1 cpu form but the cray-2 upgraded coolant.
It wouldn't surprise me if we had the bastard love-child of leftovers from Boeing.
The GP also mentions X11 Terminals. My wiki-fu shows the X Windowing System came about on or around 1983, while Cray-1 was 1970s vintage. I assume that was an upgrade at some later point.
X Window Release 3 (X11R3) was introduced on Cray into UNICOS (a UNIX variant of Cray OS, COS) in late 1989 using ported 64-bit Xlib. But it was not widely used within small Cray community.
But MIT cooked up X11 "PROTOCOL" of Xlib in late 1985 to 1986 on Univac and Unix in C with many other X libraries written in Common Lisp.
X10R3 mostly stabilized the Xlib around a few platforms and CPU architecture (DDX) in a"long" preparation for X11R1 in September 1987.
It was fat finger memory. it was X10R3 or something similar, which I had previously used in UCL on Ultrix machines in the 80s. I don't think it was R5, I don't think much got upgraded in that space but .. it was a long time ago.
This was a SECOND HAND cray. It was a tax contra made in the 90s when Boeing sold a lot of stuff to the Australian Defence forces, and to avoid a massive tax burden donated science trash to the uni.
Long Island is even more of a long hallway than the peninsula. The LIRR manages to have multiple trunks and something like 10 different branch lines.
One thing that made it possible is LI is much flatter terrain than the peninsula.
The main trunk lines are in Long Island are about 3-4 miles apart. Northwest of around Cupertino or so, the mountains edge too close to the bay shoreline for you to make a second trunk line viable. Your best bet would be plonking a line around about 85, but the right-of-way doesn't exist to actually hook that line up to the existing line in any useful way.
And outside of that, basically everything you'd consider plonking another path already exists with some service: BART runs up the east shore of the bay, as it does west of San Bruno Mountain. You have two mountain crossings covered by BART and one by ACE. The main missing things are curving BART back into San Jose and reactivating the Dumbarton Bridge.
I've wondered about running BART from Fremont to East Palo Alto and Redwood City via Dumbarton. Not sure what the ridership would be though. I looked at the Dumbarton bridge traffic and it's the least of the three bridges and pales in comparison to the bay bridge.
Still if you built that the gap between Millbrae and Redwood city is 12 miles.
Your last sentence was going to be my reply. The peninsula is really linear along 101 / the historic el Camino. There really isn’t anything to connect to.
LIRR still had to do plenty of tunneling to build the East Side Access station though. Still, it opened in 2023! NYC is also still building the second avenue subway --- slowly, haltingly, and at near-ruinous expense, but it's actually a real expansion to the network is actually happening. By US standards, that's a miracle.
A snapshot is a low-cost read-only view of a filesystem at a point in time; a clone is a writeable filesystem with initial contents shared from a snapshot.
It's an amazing safety net, though it requires understanding and sysadmin discipline to use well -- starting with keeping user/application data separated from the filesystems managed as part of the BE. ZFS makes this easy (a pool can contain many separate filesystems) but you have to do it.
One gotcha is that if you run an update that creates and activates a new BE but don't reboot right away, changes made to the BE-managed part of the running system after the snapshot creation will be "lost" (stranded in the old BE) when you reboot to the new BE.
There were significant power shutdowns in California in 2019 (affecting millions of customers in aggregate); the reason for the shutdowns was different from 2001 (preemptive shutdowns when the risk of downed power lines starting wildfires was thought to be high) but the impact on customers is the same: no power for an extended period.
Notably this Onion piece was added to the home page of MIT’s architecture department the year my cohort of grad students moved from LCS into the newly opened Stata center.
The building was was fun to explore, but had a number of defects that suggested its designer was a big-picture not a details guy.
Ever heard of a loop that needed to keep more than 7 variables live? Register renaming helps with pipelining and out-of-order execution, but instructions in the program can only reference the architectural registers - go beyond that and you end up needing to spill some values to (architectural) memory.
There's a reason why AMD added r8-r15 to the architecture, and why intel is adding r16-r31..
I have but that was not the point? My first point was exactly that there are more ISA registers and not only 8, and therefore the question mark. My second point was about register renaming which, contrary what you say, does mitigate the artifacts of running out of registers by spilling the variables to the stack memory. It does it by eliminating the false dependencies between variables/registers and xor eax, eax is a great candidate for that.
Register renaming allows the CPU to execute in parallel instructions it might otherwise need to serialize.
But it does nothing to help you, the programmer, when your algorithm really needs to have 9 registers worth of data in registers and your CPU only has 8 architectural registers available to you. At that point, you either spill manually, or you take the performance hit from keeping the ninth value in memory instead of a register.
Ok, it obviously doesn't increase the number of ISA registers. What I am suggesting is something else - imagine a situation in which the compiler understands that the spill over will take place, and therefore rearranges the code such that it reduces the pressure on the registers. It can do that if it can break the data dependencies between the variables for instance. Or it can do that by unrolling the loops or by moving the initialization closer to where the variable is being used, no? I am pretty certain that compilers are already doing these kind of transformations, and in a sense this is taking advantage of register renaming but indirectly.
reply