|
|
|
|
|
by dTal
3136 days ago
|
|
Perhaps because a lot of tasks are not embarassingly parallel, which means moving data around, which means network interconnects, which means latency matters. Every millisecond delay in forwarding a packet is thousands of instructions stalled. I'm not saying this is actually a sensible tradeoff for any extant HPC architecture, but it could be. You certainly want the 'OS' that runs the pipeline on your CPU to be real time! |
|
It actually means "latency with a known upper bound". The point of it is to be able to give engineering guarantees - the actuators on the rocket engine vanes will move within N milliseconds of the input voltage from the gyroscope module changing; the robot arm motor will be de-energised within N milliseconds of the laser perimeter sensor activating.
Bounding the worst case can often mean making trade-offs in the best case, and that doesn't make sense in HPC because the hard upper bound just isn't necessary in this environment.