Minutes of the meeting held on 26/
4/1968 at State House, London
-
Present
- Lord Halsbury (Chair)
- Dr R A Buckingham
- Professor T Kilburn
- Professor E S Page
- Professor R E Peierls
- Dr T G Pickavance
- Mr L F Rutterford
- Professor M V Wilkes
- Dr J Howlett
- Mr C Jolliffe
- Dr J H Price
- Mr R St J Walker
-
Apologies
1 Minutes of the Last Meeting
The Committee approved the Minutes of the meeting held on 17th
November 1967 with the following amendments:
-
Item 4, first paragraph: delete the
words perhaps a little lower
-
Item 7(6) on page 4: the last phrase to be altered to read
partly to let the Atlas Computer Laboratory put more of
its effort into software development, from which the British
industry would benefit
2 Matters Arising
Users' Committee: Dr Howlett told the Committee that he
hoped to arrange a meeting of the
reconstituted Users' Committee in late May or early June.
3 Progress Report - ACC/68/1
The Committee noted the various tables giving the numerical
facts about the work-load and the machine's performance. The
following points were made:
- The throughput of the installation continued to increase, due
partly to larger working hours and partly to increased
efficiency. Dr Howlett said that the engineers had cut the
daily maintenance from 4 hours to 2, and that 22 hours was
scheduled for computing service each day; the working week
was now extended by 8 hours to Saturday morning, and would be
further extended to Saturday midnight by the Autumn. The
performance record would be studied critically at the end of
May, to see how the machine had stood up to the reduced maintenance.
The engineers had said that they would always want
possession of the machine for a full 8-hour shift on Sunday.
- The routines for allowing library programs to work from the disc,
and private storage needs to be allocated, were in use.
- The hardware needed for the modification of the Teletypes was
to be delivered on Monday, 29th April
- The demands from Harwell and the Rutherford Laboratory having
fallen to small values, there was little reason to continue
to report these as separate groups. Harwell usage might in
future be included in the External (i.e. paying) group and
Rutherford in the Internal (non-paying group).
- The increased use by universities was striking (4,608 hours
for the 1967/68 financial year, against 2,742 for 1966/67),
especially the very rapid increase by the smaller and the new
universities.
(N.B. These times, given in table 5, were not clock times,
but instruction interrupts converted to time by the relation
1 interrupt = 12 milliseconds; in present circumstances
this over-estimates the clock time by a variable amount which
can go up to 20%).
It would be interesting to see how these demands changed in
the future as universities got their new computers into
operation.
The Committee noted requests for better documentation of the
Supervisor and for completion of the LISP compiler.
4 Estimates 1968/69 and Forward look 1969/70-1973/74 - ACC/68/2
As no action was needed, the Committee noted this paper:
Mr Walker said that there would almost certainly have to be some
changes, for example in numbers of staff, in response to further
restrictions imposed by the treasury on the SRC as part of the
Government's general policy of economy in public spending.
5 SC4020 Microfilm Plotter: Costs and Charges - ACC/68/3
The Committee accepted the paper and authorised Dr Howlett
to raise charges for the use of the SC 4020 at the rates proposed;
and asked him to review the outcome towards the end of the 1968/69
financial year.
6 New Computer for the Atlas Laboratory: ICT Revised Project - ACC/68/4
In discussing this paper the Committee were very sharply aware
of two disadvantages:
- ICT had still not produced a specification of the P.51 system.
- The recent merger of ICT, EEC and Plessey had disturbed
the whole project, and the effect of this disturbance was so far unknown.
The following points were made:
- The change from the original 3-processor system, extendable
to 4, to one of a maximum of 2 processors removed some of the
flexibility but simplified the software; it was probably
inspired partly by ICT's fears of software complications,
partly by their interest in producing a twin-1907 system.
- There should be no difficulty in producing hardware capable
of 7-10 times Atlas speed, but the production of software to run
even this simpler system efficiently would be a serious problem.
It would be worth urging ICT to deliver the hardware as
quickly as possible, and accepting the need to develop software
on the site, in collaboration with other customers.
- One particular weakness of ICT's proposal for software was
the holding of a complete operating system in each processor;
this was made necessary by a decision to allow peripherals to
be attached directly to either processor. A simpler and more
efficient system could be designed if all peripherals were
attached to one, the other communicating only with the disc
and the main core store.
- The Manchester Regional Centre were considering a system similar
to that now proposed for Chilton. They too considered the
mass core store essential for operational efficiency.
- There was a great need for a serious study of the problems of
linking processors, and by tackling the problem with a full-scale
installation the Chilton laboratory would be making a
valuable contribution to the technology of computer software.
Asked about his own work on a new design of computer, Professor
Kilburn said that it was a research project and that at this stage
he could not advise the Committee to base any plans on its outcome.
Professor Page emphasized that the development of the Laboratory
was being held up because no firm information about the production
of the P.51 could be obtained. The 1906A, however, was certainly
being produced and advantage could be taken of this fact; he
suggested the Committee should consider proceeding as follows:
- order the 1906A, with peripherals, disc and mass store as in
the paper, to be got into operation as a single processor as
quickly as possible;
- order a second 1906A central processor, either on hire or with
an undertaking from ICT to take this back on acceptable
terms when the P.51 processor was produced;
- start to attack the software problems by linking the two 1906A processors.
The Committee recognised that in the present state of uncertainty
of the P.51 project they could not make a firm recommendation
to the Council, and expressed their gravest concerns lest the delays
and uncertainties which had operated over the past two years should
continue to frustrate the development of a large British computer.
Dr Howlett read a letter he had had from Mr P D Hall, marketing
Director of ICT, dated 22nd April 1968. Mr Hall said that his
company was engaged in an intensive study of the effects of the
merger on their technical, production and marketing positions, and
hoped to present firm proposals within a few weeks of the date of
his letter. The Committee agreed to meet again at 11.00am on
4th June 1968, provided that ICT had by that time made their
plans known.
7 Consultation with UST Board Committees - ACC/68/5
The Committee commented that, additionally to its prime object
of getting an expert opinion on the scientific value of the work,
the proposed policy of consulting the USTB committee would
have the valuable effect of keeping the Board informed of the nature
and extent of the Laboratory's contribution to university research.
They requested Dr Howlett to proceed along the lines of the paper,
suggesting that he should agree the details of the procedure with
Mr Jolliffe.
8 Distribution of Atlas Laboratory Programs by the National Computing Centre - ACC/68/6
The Committee agreed that it would be to everyone's advantage
to have the Laboratory's programs disseminated as widely as possible,
provided that the universities' position was not prejudiced and that
the charges made to industrial or commercial users were realistic and
equitable. They approved Dr Howlett's proposal to open formal
discussions with the National Computing Centre, involving the SRC Finance Branch.
9 Date of Next Meeting
See last paragraph of item 6.