[HN Gopher] Atari Transputer Workstation ___________________________________________________________________ Atari Transputer Workstation Author : gscott Score : 100 points Date : 2021-03-17 09:26 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (dunfield.classiccmp.org) (TXT) w3m dump (dunfield.classiccmp.org) | abraxas wrote: | I always wondered if we could achieve greater success in server | hardware by having boards with truly massive numbers of tiny CPUs | all with their own RAM and maybe even individual storage. Since | most web apps are very simple at an individual session level | having a 1 to 1 mapping between a CPU and a session could provide | for a great developer and user experience when building server | apps. | guenthert wrote: | > I always wondered if we could achieve greater success in | server hardware by having boards with truly massive numbers of | tiny CPUs all with their own RAM | | You mean like GPGPUs? | abraxas wrote: | Not familiar with the term. I'll read up on it. | rbanffy wrote: | One day I'll design a board with a beefy network switch and a | bunch (32, perhaps) of Octavo SiPs (an ARM core, RAM, ethernet, | SD reader wires, GPIO in a single BGA package), put a red LED | for each module on the edge, stack 32 of those in a translucent | box and play with something that, at least, has the same number | of blinking lights as a Connection Machine. | shrubble wrote: | Some of the folks ended up being the principals at XMOS (a play | on words of InMos), which still has a vaguely transputer-ish | design. | | As well, there is the KROC compiler which allows a variant of the | Occam programming language to be run on Linux, OS X and I think | Windows. (Mentioning this in case anyone wants to play with the | concepts without having a transputer). | [deleted] | 2sk21 wrote: | I wrote a lot of code on a Meiko computing surface in Occam in | the late 1980s! Was very hard to get even simple algorithms to | run. | jeffbee wrote: | The rework on the graphics card is killing me. That it was more | economical to patch over circuit board design flaws with manual | soldering than to re-spin a second revision of the board | surprises me. | buescher wrote: | A board spin used to be orders of magnitude more expensive in | both time and money than it is now, and this was a very low | volume application. | jasomill wrote: | That, and bodges can be easily applied to already-assembled | boards in inventory, repair centers, and the field. | ilaksh wrote: | What's the difference between a transputer and the latest | graphics cards? | | Also, don't recent CPUs have a lot of engineering to integrate | many cores together efficiently? Most high-end CPUs now are 4-16 | cores. | | I suspect that maybe just about every computer today is kind of a | transputer. | jacquesm wrote: | > What's the difference between a transputer and the latest | graphics cards? | | That you could string Transputers together via their links to | create an arbitrary topology computing fabric. | mattowen_uk wrote: | Looks like it runs this OS: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeliOS | a-dub wrote: | interesting. if i'm reading the wikipedia article about this | right, they were essentially SoCs with on-die high speed | networking and no shared ram? the ring architecture reminds me a | bit of multicore x86... | timthorn wrote: | MicroLive had a feature on the Transputer back in the day: | https://clp.bbcrewind.co.uk/be4d23d20200fca1b1db963376852c3f | bitwize wrote: | With all the talk about attaching CPUs to RAM modules, the | transputer may well live again! | reason-mr wrote: | I did my Ph.D. thesis on a Sun 4/110 connected to a VME | transputer board and from there into a larger transputer array, | using T-800s. Amazing and way ahead of the times - what really | killed things was a combination of the removal of financial | support by the UK Govt, and also an unexpected increase in the | clock frequency of single core CPUs, rendering anything which was | not on the latest process out of date. Then the UK went into | recession, and many good people left. Some went to the west coast | US, other took teaching positions in places like Australia. I do | always wonder what could have become of the UK computer industry | in the early 90's had it been appropriately funded at the right | time (via something like DARPA). But instead, the concentration | went into turning London into a financial hub. | [deleted] | reason-mr wrote: | And also - while we are on the subject of british parallel | computing - have a look at this : | https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F3-540-17943-7_12... | - Cobweb - wafer scale VLSI in 1987 | fanf2 wrote: | What killed the transputer, from the technical point of view, | was the failure of the T9000. Its target clock speed was, IIRC, | 50MHz (it was roughly contemporary with the first Pentium) but | Inmos has terrible problems getting it to run at more than | about 20MHz | | So companies that had been building large multiprocessors using | transputer switched to other architectures, eg Meiko who were | in the building next door were making machines with SPARC CPUs | and their own interconnect. | | The T9 was cool, though. The transputer instruction set was a | stack-based byte code, very dense but by the 1990s not that | fast, because of the growing discrepancy between CPU speed and | memory speed. So the T9 had an instruction decoder that would | recover risc-style ops from the stack bytecode. It was helped a | bit because the transputer had the notion of a "workspace", a | bit of memory (about 16 words) that a lightweight process could | access with very short instructions - in the T9 this | effectively became the register set. The T9 would have been a | very early superscalar CPU. | | And the T9's new fast serial links used a relatively efficient | layer 1 signalling scheme that was later reused for IEEE 1344 | Firewire. | | (I was an intern at Inmos between secondary school and | university, 1993-1994, when this was happening.) | UncleOxidant wrote: | > unexpected increase in the clock frequency of single core | CPUs | | The 90s were brutal for alternative architectures like the | Transputer because performance of Intel processors were | significantly improving just about yearly. I recall a neural | net chip startup company near where I live - they did some cool | science Saturday presentations for the public where they | explained how neural nets worked (this was the early 90s). But | unfortunately, they only lasted a few years - they were only | about 25 years ahead of their time. Now here we are in the | 2020s and alternative architectures are sprouting like | dandelions. | cesaref wrote: | I attended Bristol Uni's Computer Science department in the | late 80s. They had a room of Sun 3s which had transputer cards, | which were programmed in occam in a weird folding editor. It | was clearly the future, and all programming would look like | that in the future (hint, not the one I ended up living in). | | I also seem to remember seeing a demo of a mandlebrot set being | rendered impressively quickly in parallel on a transputer based | machine, which I think was a cube shaped machine. A quick look | on the web doesn't throw up any obvious hits though. | criddell wrote: | Could the cube shaped machine be a SGI Iris? | fanf2 wrote: | No, that didn't contain any transputers, but it might have | been a Parsytec GigaCluster | | http://www.geekdot.com/category/hardware/transputer/parsyte | c... | cesaref wrote: | Just found reference to it on David May's page, which is | suitably retro html for the Inmos architect who created | occam and did all sorts of interesting things like formally | prove their FPU implementation (before formal proofs for | that sort of thing were common): | | http://people.cs.bris.ac.uk/~dave/transputer.html | | 'The B0042 board contains 42 transputers connected via | their links into a 2-dimensional array. A number of them | were built following a manufacturing error - all of these | transputers were inserted into the packages in the wrong | orientation so were fully functional but unsaleable. I had | them all (around 2000) written off for engineering use and | we built the B0042 'evaluation' boards! Many of these were | given to Southampton University where they were assembled | into a 1260 processor machine and used for experimental | scientific computing. Inmos used them in a number of | exhibitions (in a box of 10 boards - 420 processors) | drawing Mandelbrot sets in real time!' | | Sounds like the machine I remember, a 420 processor machine | in a box in the late 80s was quite something. | youngtaff wrote: | Bristol has many silicon design companies based around it, | and they're often credited to Inmos being there first | voldacar wrote: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W17opJa9KGY | | might have been this one? or perhaps the following old demo: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdK3PXKvYgs | aap_ wrote: | I got to play with one of these two years ago for a bit. Quite a | fun machine! | buescher wrote: | I remember reading about these; I didn't know Atari ever brought | it to market. | | I did personally see a transputer card in a PC running a | Mandelbrot demo in that era. EGA graphics! I don't think the | person who had that in his office ever got it to do what he | originally bought it for, btw. | | Here's a video; from 1986! | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdK3PXKvYgs | agumonkey wrote: | i knew about them but seeing it run is quite shocking | alexisread wrote: | Yes, Atari did, and without the ATW, the Falcon and Jaguar | wouldn't have happened. | | Richard Miller designed the Blossom video card, was hired by | Atari to design the Falcon (which contained a cut down | blossom), and who in turn hired his ex-Sinclair friends to | design the Jaguar. | | https://atariage.com/forums/topic/212866-atari-sparrow-proto... | leashless wrote: | I saw Mandelbrot sets rendering on these in realtime in the late | 1980s or very early 1990s. I knew I was seeing the future. Now it | all fits on an M1 Mac. | UncleSlacky wrote: | I saw these too, running on a Meiko Computing Surface | containing (IIRC) 64 Transputers when I was at university. We | were taught Occam, but weren't allowed to touch the machine | itself. | | Many years later, I found a T-800 in its storage case abandoned | in the drawer of my new (to me) desk at a new job - so I kept | it. | randomifcpfan wrote: | Transputer (and later Cell) was a bet that SMP with cache | coherency would be too difficult to implement. Here's a long | explanation from Linus Torvalds of why we're not using | architectures like Transputer any more: | https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=200812&curpost... | benreesman wrote: | Microservice-by-default architecture is, IMHO, neatly rebutted | by the same argument. | wrs wrote: | From the manual: | | "[In the future] a single processor will provide somewhere | between a gigaflop and a teraflop of performance. Are there | really problems which need such power?" | | It goes on to list problems like quantum chemistry simulations | and weather forecasting. Turns out the answer was...running a web | browser. | siltpotato wrote: | Didn't foresee the inefficiencies and overhead of modern | programming. | shaunxcode wrote: | I like to believe the transputer lives on in the various flavors | of CSP that are actively in use (GO, core.async etc.) | tyingq wrote: | The description of the transputer seems to have a lot in common | with the Parallax Propeller, which is pretty popular. | | https://www.parallax.com/propeller/ | hinkley wrote: | I feel like at this point we should be teaching History of | Computing in CS programs. | | The old people cry, "This is all the same (stuff that's been | going on forever," the young cry, "This is the future, old man." | | The truth is somewhere in the middle. | | "The future is already here, it's just unevenly distributed," | very much describes the cycles, but I feel like in some ways this | was more obvious 15 years ago, when PC evolution was the focus | (nowadays it seems like mobility takes up a lot of bandwidth, | which is a huge thing that feels small). | | Things like GPUs hitting a tipping point where some feature that | had been around for 4-8 years was now ubiquitous enough that | software would assume that it was available - and fast. UI | expectations ratchet up almost overnight even though the | underlying technology has been simmering for years. This was | quite pronounced in the 90's, but continued well into the 00's. | | Everyone I think can see those, but the epicycles take a bit more | study or time. Big architectural changes are driven by cost | inequalities in our technologies, and those cycle. Eventually the | right somebodies gets fed up and we get SSDs, or 10G Ethernet. | Each of those makes some previously abandoned solutions viable | again, and they sneak back in (often having to relearn old | mistakes). | | This multiprocessing idea dates back almost to the very beginning | of private sector computing. The ILLIAC IV (1975) was intended to | scale to 16 cores but some hardware problems capped it at 4 | cores. Those processors were 64bit, and connected to ARPAnet a | year before the Cray 1 was born. | | Sequent revisited this idea in the late 80's, early 90's, using | Intel x86 processor arrays. | | We now have a handful of programming languages that have features | that could be useful in aggressively NUMA systems (in | particular,Scala, Elixir, and Rust). We'll probably see single- | box clusters coming around again. | UncleOxidant wrote: | Definitely should be teaching more history. I recall that | neural nets were pretty popular in the late 80s into the mid | 90s. I recall a local startup that was working on a specialized | neural net chip back in the early 90s, but they couldn't keep | up with performance/price improvements from Intel & AMD and | folded after a few years. Now there must be dozens of companies | doing specialized architectures for neural nets. | brianobush wrote: | It is much cheaper nowadays to make ASICs, which I think | partially explains the expounding growth in NN chips. | UncleOxidant wrote: | Not sure I completely agree. I was in the ASIC biz back in | the early 90s. I knew about the NN company I described | above because they were a customer. Looking at NRE costs | now vs then it doesn't seem all that different (considering | inflation). (Sure, they can do a lot more gates now than | back then) | flyinghamster wrote: | > Sequent revisited this idea in the late 80's, early 90's, | using Intel x86 processor arrays. | | Also, there were NS3200 versions, like the Balance 8000 with | six CPUs I remember at UIUC around 1986. I was floored by how | effortlessly it handled having just about everyone in the CS | class compiling their assignments the night before they were | due. Compared to the Pyramid 90x I'd used the year before, it | was like night and day. | | It took a while, but that eventually percolated down to | everyday PCs. It's kind of stunning that I can get 64-core CPUs | these days, and even my much more modest first-generation Ryzen | is no slouch. | tyingq wrote: | _" Compared to the Pyramid 90x I'd used"_ | | Ahh, the original OSX. | Maursault wrote: | > I feel like at this point we should be teaching History of | Computing in CS programs. | | I am responding in trepidation, because I am certain you and | everyone at HN must know what I am about to say. | | Computer Science is not the science of computers, nor is it | remotely the history of computers. The "computer" in Computer | Science is not a machine... it is a person, "one who computes." | Nor is Computer Science programming, not strictly speaking, | though programming is often among the tools utilized by a | computer scientist. Computer Science is and only is a subset of | Mathematics, and properly initially belongs in the Math | Department of a university. | | The simplest analogy I have heard, which I think most now have, | is that a computer is to a computer scientist what a telescope | is to an astronomer. Astronomy is not the science of | telescopes, nor the history of telescopes, though I would | expect most Astronomy curriculums to include some overview of | how telescopes work and their history, but not as some core and | essential tract within the study. So in that many machines were | utilized to forward the pursuit of Computer Science, so long as | it is focusing on the computer science and not the nuts and | bolts computer, your idea has merit. | | If I am not mistaken, Computer Engineering probably doesn't | spend much more than a brief overview of the history of the | actual hardware. The CE undergraduate degree is overflowing as | it is. | | IMO, what you are suggesting belongs in the curriculum of the | History of Technology, which is a perfectly valid and endlessly | fascinating pursuit. | | This machine is neat, and I was using computers during this | era, so it makes my mouth water, "what if I had access to | that?" But unless it was actually used by someone, a computer | scientist, for and to advance actual Computer Science (and that | _can not_ merely be programming or creating business | applications or games, but needs to at least be efforts towards | computational systems), it is entirely irrelevant to the field | of Computer Science. | | Also, in the sense that Computer Science predates hardware by | millennia, the History of Computing (i.e. the history of the | activity of one who computes) is already covered in C.S. | | Suggested to me years ago, which I completely agree with, since | "computer" is now an ambiguous term, Computer Science should | change its name to avoid the all to common mistake of assuming | CS has to do with desktops and servers. Computer Science is | really the science of reckoning, so it should be called | "Reckoning Science" to avoid further confusion. | PAPPPmAc wrote: | There's a quote from Alan Kay (who is full of delightful | aphorisms) in an 2002 Dr. Dobbs interview "The lack of | interest, the disdain for history is what makes computing not- | quite-a-field." that is one of my favorite descriptions of the | state of things. | | I'm a huge advocate for teaching History of Computing, and try | to slip some into my classes (I teach computer engineering, but | close enough) - maybe some year I'll manage to sell running a | whole elective course. | thescriptkiddie wrote: | I strongly agree that we should be teaching a history of | computing in CS/CE programs. I fondly remember my intro to | computing systems class taught by a greybeard who spent the | entire first lecture going over history and then told us to | learn emacs or vim for homework. | flenserboy wrote: | Have a term where students, familiar with modern programming, | have to deal with programming on older (80s?) machines (on | VMs, at least). Not only will it force them to deal with | constraints they would otherwise be unaware of, they will | appreciate what they have available to them today much, much | more. | filoleg wrote: | People underestimate how useful it would be, despite it not | being "directly applicable". | | If I had to pick one class that I would call fundamental to | my understanding of CS, it would be CS2110 (Computer | Organization and Programming) from Georgia Tech. | | It started off with building stuff using logic gates, like | APUs. Then it moved onto other stuff. It all culminated | into building your own simplistic CPU pipeline (in an | emulator) and making a small game for Gameboy Advance. | Dealing with hardware limitations of that handheld console, | as well as learning some interesting tricks the devs had to | employ for it to add stuff like parallax backgrounds, felt | eye-opening. | thaeli wrote: | Between GPUs and increasing core counts on CPUs, in many ways | we've had single-box clusters for a while as normal current-gen | workstations. | dfox wrote: | During the last 20 years the typical x86 box went from single | CPU, through multiple CPUs, through multiple CPUs with non- | trivial NUMA topology to the current state where not having | non-trivial NUMA topology is meaningful point in marketing of | the thing. The primary reason is that large class of somewhat | interesting workloads do not cope well with NUMA and then | obviously running such workloads on some kind of weakly | coupled cluster is completely impossible. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-03-18 23:00 UTC)