caml-list - the Caml user's mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gerd Stolpmann <info@gerd-stolpmann.de>
To: Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com>
Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 04:03:10 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1210644190.478.8.camel@flake.lan.gerd-stolpmann.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200805130219.23224.jon@ffconsultancy.com>


Am Dienstag, den 13.05.2008, 02:19 +0100 schrieb Jon Harrop:
> On Tuesday 13 May 2008 01:42:42 Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 12.05.2008, 14:22 +0100 schrieb Richard Jones:
> > > This is just barely faster than Jon's OCaml version using message
> > > passing (12% faster on my test machine[0]).  Which just seems to show
> > > that the overhead of message passing _isn't_ the problem here[1].
> >
> > I've just written my own distributed version. You find my comments and
> > timings here:
> >
> > http://blog.camlcity.org/blog/parallelmm.html
> >
> > The code is here:
> >
> > https://godirepo.camlcity.org/svn/lib-ocamlnet2/trunk/code/examples/rpc/mat
> >rixmult/
> >
> > In this (very unoptimized) multiplier message passing accounts for ~25%
> > of the runtime. Even for 2 cores there is already a speedup. 10 cores
> > (over a network) are about 4 times faster than a single core without
> > message passing.
> 
> For what values of "n"?

It's in the article. n=1000, 2000, 3000. The "4 times faster" statement
is for n=3000.

Gerd
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gerd Stolpmann * Viktoriastr. 45 * 64293 Darmstadt * Germany 
gerd@gerd-stolpmann.de          http://www.gerd-stolpmann.de
Phone: +49-6151-153855                  Fax: +49-6151-997714
------------------------------------------------------------



  reply	other threads:[~2008-05-13  2:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 89+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-05-09  0:39 Why OCaml sucks Jon Harrop
2008-05-09  1:11 ` [Caml-list] " Matthew William Cox
2008-05-09  5:10   ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml **cks Jon Harrop
2008-05-09  4:45 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Arthur Chan
2008-05-09  5:09   ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 11:12     ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-09 11:58       ` Gabriel Kerneis
2008-05-09 12:10         ` Concurrency [was Re: [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks] Robert Fischer
2008-05-09 12:41         ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-09 12:49         ` David Teller
2008-05-09 18:10       ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 20:40         ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-09 20:55           ` Berke Durak
2008-05-10 10:56             ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-09 21:00           ` Till Varoquaux
2008-05-09 21:13             ` Berke Durak
2008-05-09 22:26               ` Richard Jones
2008-05-09 23:01                 ` Berke Durak
2008-05-10  7:52                   ` Richard Jones
2008-05-10  8:24                     ` Berke Durak
2008-05-10  8:51                       ` Richard Jones
2008-05-13  3:47           ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 22:25         ` David Teller
2008-05-09 22:57           ` Vincent Hanquez
2008-05-10 19:59           ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-10 21:39             ` Charles Forsyth
2008-05-11  3:58               ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-11  9:41                 ` Charles Forsyth
2008-05-12 13:22             ` Richard Jones
2008-05-12 18:07               ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-12 20:05                 ` Arthur Chan
2008-05-13  0:42               ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-13  1:19                 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-13  2:03                   ` Gerd Stolpmann [this message]
2008-05-13  3:13                     ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-12 20:33             ` Arthur Chan
2008-05-12 21:22               ` Till Varoquaux
2008-05-09 13:00     ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-09 17:46       ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 18:17         ` Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-10  1:29           ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-10 14:51             ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml **cks Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-10 18:19               ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-10 21:58                 ` Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-10 18:39               ` Mike Lin
2008-05-12 13:31           ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 18:18             ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-12 13:13   ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 19:32     ` Arthur Chan
2008-05-09  6:31 ` Tom Primožič
2008-05-09  6:46 ` Elliott Oti
2008-05-09  7:53   ` Till Varoquaux
2008-05-09  7:45 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-09  8:10   ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09  9:31     ` Richard Jones
2008-05-09  7:58 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks David Teller
2008-05-09 10:29   ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 13:08     ` David Teller
2008-05-09 15:38     ` Jeff Polakow
2008-05-09 18:09       ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 20:36         ` Berke Durak
2008-05-09 22:34         ` Richard Jones
2008-05-14 13:44           ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-09  8:29 ` constructive criticism about Ocaml Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-09  9:45 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Vincent Hanquez
2008-05-09 10:23   ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml **cks Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 22:01     ` Vincent Hanquez
2008-05-09 22:23       ` David Teller
2008-05-10  8:36       ` Christophe TROESTLER
2008-05-10  9:18         ` Vincent Hanquez
2008-05-09 11:37   ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Ralph Douglass
2008-05-09 13:02     ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks David Teller
2008-05-09 12:33 ` not all functional languages lack parallelism Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-09 18:10   ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 20:26     ` Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-12 12:54 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 14:16   ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-13 13:33     ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-13 13:49       ` Robert Fischer
2008-05-13 14:01         ` Brian Hurt
2008-05-13 14:13           ` Robert Fischer
2008-05-13 15:18             ` Berke Durak
2008-05-14  4:40             ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-13 14:25           ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-14  4:29           ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 13:01 ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 19:18   ` Arthur Chan
2008-05-12 19:41     ` Karl Zilles
2008-05-13 13:17     ` Kuba Ober

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1210644190.478.8.camel@flake.lan.gerd-stolpmann.de \
    --to=info@gerd-stolpmann.de \
    --cc=caml-list@yquem.inria.fr \
    --cc=jon@ffconsultancy.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).