Talk:System bus model

PROD

This is a machine architecture, according to the diagram, and according to various books. It needs to be rewritten, to distinguish that this is not a CPU architecture. (hence the CPU is a unit in this model, not the entirety of the model). I/O devices, main memory and the CPU all exist on a system bus to communicate with one another, the system bus is composed of data lines, address lines and control lines. That is the standard way that PCs are built on when the system bus was a local bus (ie. the original IBM PC, when simplified to a basic diagram)

76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So what the article describes is wrong, thus efforts to find references supporting its notability are also flawed since the search terms used do not accurately summarise the topic's essentials? Rilak (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I left a note about it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing, and someone has already said that deletion is not uncontroversial. What the article describes is a model where the CPU is a concept that exists, whereas in the original VNA, the concept of the CPU does not exist, since the VNA predates the CPU. This article is about a computer architecture, that includes the concept of a CPU, and is in many different books, called derivative of the Von Neumann architecture, and in other books, is classified as a Von Neumann architecture. The description, as sparse as it is, is meaningfully accurate except for its statement about combining the ALU with the CPU, which is wrong. It combines the ALU and the CU (control unit). 76.66.200.95 (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, von Nuemann proposed a computer system comprised of five? "parts" which he called organs: "central arithmetic", "central control", memory, input, and output. What does this have to do in addressing the notability of the system bus model? Nothing, just like your comment. Rilak (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that further discussion also occur at WikiProject Computing, as it will more likely gather other interested editors. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about this article should occur here. --Kvng (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

IMHO: unless I'm missing something where it is already described, it should stay (such concept is mentioned, even if not by this name, in every second book on computer architecture), and should be cross-referenced with Symmetric multiprocessing and Front-side bus (both are implementations of this model, even if in wide sense). Ipsign (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand why you are explaining to me what the von Neumann architecture is. My issue with this article is WP:N. My issue is not with this article is not with its content (I don't care what it says, I care about how notable it is). The editor who removed the PROD claimed that there were many references of the topic, which is the system bus model. If this is the case, then why did my searches return a mere handful of results? I expect to be presented with references or with the search terms used to produce the reported results. Rilak (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, as I've stated above: I support keeping this article, and there is clearly no consensus on deletion; per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion, anybody disagreeing can simply remove the PROD tag, which has been done by 76.66.200.95 (and which I would do myself if I'd run into it). In addition, I don't see how argument "why did my searches return a mere handful of results?" can possibly be relevant to article being not notable; as I see it, article can be proven notable via references, but not vice versa. In addition, it can easily be a case of notable subject but not notable article title here (which may qualify it for renaming instead of deletion). What I know (personally) is that such concept does exist (and how it is named, is another story which I don't really want to be involved into); on the other hand, proving its notability is beyond my interests right now; what I know is that there is clearly no consensus for deletion. Ipsign (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I give up. Present evidence that the term "system bus model" is notable else the article will go to AfD. If the "system bus model" is an obscure synonym, then redirect/move/merge it somewhere. Rilak (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope author will provide evidence, if not - see you on AfD discussion. BTW, I wouldn't object to renaming this article or to merging it (for example, into an article on von Neumann architecture); I have no idea if it is worth its own article, but feel that somewhere on Wiki this concept should be described, and therefore that deleting this information completely wouldn't be a good thing. Ipsign (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If Von Neumann architecture is the right destination, why don't we put up some merge banners and avoid AfD? --Kvng (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel like proposing such merge myself (I'm not 100% sure about it), but if you propose it, I will not object. Ipsign (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I went a little deeper, found a second ref. Merge appears to be appropriate. I've put up merge banners. --Kvng (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No objections from my side. Ipsign (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Revisited

I just realized that since there is no "I/O bus" on the diagram, if the architectural concept of Memory-mapped I/O was confused with the implementation technique of a system bus. For example, the PDP-8 could be implmented with separate buses (as in early models) or the system bus (Omnibus) of the PDP-8/E. It had explicit I/O instructions. The PDP-11 had no I/O instrcutions, so all I/O was memory mapped. It could also be implemented as a single system bus (the PDP-11/20) or separate I/O and memory buses (PDP-11/70 etc.). W Nowicki (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge to System bus

With page System bus recently created by W Nowicki, I think the best we can do now is to merge System bus model into System bus (they address the same concept and are heavily redundant). Ipsign (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Three questions for anyone reading this discussion:

1. Is the following true or false?
   The system bus model is claimed to be, by the article and the references it cites, an evolution of the von Neumann architecture where the CPU, memory, and I/O are connected by a system bus.
2. Is the following true or false?
   The system bus is a bus that the CPU, memory, and I/O are connected to.
3. If the answer to questions #1 and #2 is "true", then is the system bus model and the system bus be the same concept?

My answers to question #1 and #2 is "true"; and to question #3 is "no". Therefore, I oppose merging system bus model into system bus on the basis that they are the same concept; because they are not. Rilak (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the questions above; I have since edited the article for quality (I can't resist improving articles). The concerns my edits addressed were discussed in the AfD discussion and were not for the purpose of skewing the reaction in my favor. In the interests of transparency, here is the diff of my changes [1]. For a full explanation, please consult the article history. Rilak (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

One nit: What von Neumann I think called "Central Control part" and "Central Arithmetical part" were what is now known as the CPU. At least according to http://qss.stanford.edu/~godfrey/vonNeumann/edv-an.pdf and http://qss.stanford.edu/~godfrey/vonNeumann/vnedvac.pdf .

Your other edits are reasonable, but do not totally follow your conclusion. Certainly there is a valid but subtle distinction between "a model that uses X" and "X" itself. But the question is if the topic is independently notable enough to merit a stand-alone article. The comments from October 2010 argue that only one (or maybe two) authors consider this a "model". Both those discussions are just short mentions in larger sections that discuss the system bus itself. I could not find any academic paper, for example, that discusses this as a "model" except the ones noted in the AfD where they are are talking about constructing a statistical model of a system bus, different concept.

And I am still confused if the author is talking about "achitecture" in the computer science sense (something visible to programer), which would be memory mapped I/O which removes the I/O bus? Or the modularity implementation technique? For example, the Omnibus of the PDP-8/E had a system bus but not memory mapped I/O. For that matter, it seems perfectly possible to implement a von Neumann machine with a system bus (binary compatible with the IAS machine say, but modern technology). In theory at least. And combining control with ALU is just implementation; they are still there conceptually just can all be on the same chip.

Certainly as a reader, I find orphan articles on subjects closely related to others with only one or two sources not as useful as a merged article, although that is somewhat taste. How about one or two sentences that say "some computer scientists consider this a streamling of the von Neumann architecture" and add the updated Murdocca book to the system bus article?

I do not see many precedents where there are separate articles on "X" and "X model". For example, there is System-on-a-chip but not a separate one on computers without any external bus, which might be a "model". There is one article on microcode, not a separate one on microcode model for the model of computers that use microcode, etc. von Neumann himself of course deserves his won article since many publications discuss him independently of his computer work. W Nowicki (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Computer system bus.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Computer system bus.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)