Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : India Coffee House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (1642)	6/23/1998 10:05:00 PM
From: Mohan Marette	Respond to of 12475

Super computer-PARAM from C-DAC,India Here is a link for C-DAC. Since I am not much of techie I can't say anything about its use or capabilities. soft.net

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (1642)	6/23/1998 10:48:00 PM
From: JPR	Respond to of 12475

Dippy: What you are talking is over my head, and I will not comment on it. Thanks for trying. JPR

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (1642)	6/24/1998 2:30:00 AM
From: Nandu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12475

Whenever it comes to claims about PARAM, one should ask about the 100 x 100 64-bit All-Fortran LINPACK benchmark. Where in the world are the LINPACK numbers for PARAM? After all, if the Intel Paragon (a machine similar in architecture to PARAM) can do 9.8 MFLOPS, PARAM should be able to get some number similar to that. Why is that figure not available at all? Is it because they have been unable to even execute the benchmark on 1 CPU of the PARAM? Or is it because the number is so pathetically low (~ 1 MFLOP or less) that C-DAC (the maker of PARAM) was unwilling to release it? Around the time the PARAM 1000 was announced there was a news Item in clari.world.asia.india where some Indian scientist claimed that its real throughput was only 4% of the peak. Peak performance numbers are usually estimated multiplying single CPU numbers by the number of CPUs and are basically meaningless for supercomputers. After the N tests, there was a news item, (I don't remember if I read it at Rediff or the Indian Express), where it was mentioned that the PARAM was not and is not being used for the nuclear program.

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (1642)	7/3/1998 10:17:00 AM
From: Mohan Marette	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12475

India's Own Supercomputers Saturday, June 27, 1998; Page A14 Gary Milhollin overstates the role of U.S. exports to India in facilitating the development of nuclear weapons in that country ["Made in America," Outlook, June 7]. He singles out the sale of supercomputers and related software since 1994 as being crucial. The reality is quite different: India, cognizant of the nuclear threat posed by China, set up the Center for Development of Advanced Computing in 1988 to produce indigenously advanced mainframes. The result was the PARAM family of supercomputers, each capable of more than 2 billion operations per second. Not unexpectedly, the 1996-97 annual report of the Indian government's Department of Electronics tellingly states that PARAM 9000 computers were used for "artificial intelligence-based solutions for defence." In addition, Mr. Milhollin has some incorrect information. For instance, he expects the Sagarika missile to be based on submarines. In fact, the missile, named after the daughter of the then-chief of the Indian Navy, Adm. Ramdas, is a sea-based version of the Agni missile and is not capable of being launched from submarines. R. S. KADIAN Great Falls washingtonpost.com