[klodolph]

Part of my point was that if you say "message passing is generally slower" and "shared memory mechanisms cannot scale indefinitely", then the logical conclusion is that problems are generally small. You can't meaningfully compare the speed of these two techniques in abstract any more than you can meaningfully ask if 100 is a "big number".

The comment about global locks was intended to be silly, because comparing locks to message passing without talking about what you're doing with them is also silly.

The linked paper compares MPI message passing to an alternative hardware-accelerated message passing, which is interesting, but the choice of micro-benchmarks is not very exciting. To be clear, while the GP was really comparing the actor model (private memory + message passing) against the shared memory + locks model, I was only responding to the parent comment, and when I think "message passing" I don't automatically think "private memory".

[rbehrends]

PGAS is not an "alternative hardware-accelerated message passing mechanism", unless you use a definition of message passing that is so expansive that the statement becomes vacuously true. It's distributed shared memory, integrated in the memory hierarchy, which you can manipulate at the same granularity as other memory, which you can have pointers to, etc.

You can have, say, a 100,000 x 100,000 matrix represented as an array over thousands of processors, where each processor can read and write each array element individually.

[ww520]

Well, my comment was a response to the OP's comment stating message passing obliterates the need for lock completely. It can only be viewed within that context. I think you took my comment out of context and went in a different direction.