To: SilentZ who wrote (152255 ) 12/12/2001 2:08:47 PM From: Tenchusatsu Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 186894 Z, let me bring up Combjelly's original statement:But much of the actual cost is tied up in things like the memory subsystems, switching fabrics for NUMA systems and the low volume engineering to create those things. Look at Sun's Starfire, for example. The high speed crossbar switches used to create the NUMA topology are very expensive. SledgeHammer with a HT switch can do the same thing for a fraction of the cost, and have lower latencies to boot. This whole statement is correct, except for the last sentence. HyperTransport does not define a comprehensive standard for crossbar switches, NUMA topology, switching fabric, etc. All it defines is a protocol for an interface that could potentially be used at part of such a fabric. The implementation of (the NUMA version of) HyperTransport will still cost big bucks because of the low volumes and the need to custom-tailor each implementation to different needs. And the latency argument is bunk because it is highly dependent on the implementation. HyperTransport has nothing in it that will magically reduce the latency of high-end switching fabrics. And heck, even all of this is getting way ahead of where HyperTransport is at right now. In its current form, HyperTransport is only a replacement for Intel's HubLink or VIA's V-Link interfaces. (It is also finding uses in communications, but that's another subject.) It does not yet have any of the features required for the high-end system stuff that Sun, IBM, and others are doing. There you have it, as briefly as I can make it. I feel like I'm doing you a disservice by not going into more detail, but I hope you forgive me for that. Tenchusatsu