From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p3KCUNd1019825 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:30:23 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap4BAHXRrk3RVdW2kWdsb2JhbAClNAgUAQEBAQkLCwcUBCGrZIp0giWFMTOIXQEBAwaFawSOIodlgh06 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,246,1301868000"; d="scan'208";a="93497050" Received: from mail-yx0-f182.google.com ([209.85.213.182]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 20 Apr 2011 14:30:21 +0200 Received: by yxl31 with SMTP id 31so271090yxl.27 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 05:30:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=hxkcu6YHNlBoeg+lTQYbQStLcxpzga++fX4NH07H1tA=; b=lwYyhtX1Z7MuRuckazGPkK/HvXumET+3HCU23qgf6UCnna/hm+Xw5RcUPlxnscPwLp BMyh8cq/28SXfx6HnvjqEww1utSUwiTgfL9dZFnEJ5SSSClMrXrfF2OmIWhkeWu/CKEs WSTPhiElp3MwGidjxMlBU+JVoy2MDFYbWUuZc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=knCO9SB9c0wPPaeVlwYxN9EPOufew6qQGvncmnrksi3VLJk8DfmreYkvMuShblyBjM yomW7Im7aRxD25jYXi41RkJG/GgoTLJcCy9FRBhE6e2eB/wBjvb5EFttr9rUtvnNiIdz y0MJBC2QZJd081hiLZBejcnQPAui+/+or+D+Y= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.25.166 with SMTP id z26mr5830571yhz.468.1303302620324; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 05:30:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.147.172.5 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 05:30:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4DAE9278.4050701@inescporto.pt> References: <2054357367.219171.1300974318806.JavaMail.root@zmbs4.inria.fr> <4D8BD02D.1010505@inria.fr> <4D8C73C8.6020801@inescporto.pt> <1301055903.8429.314.camel@thinkpad> <341494683.237537.1301057887481.JavaMail.root@zmbs4.inria.fr> <4D8C944A.9060601@inria.fr> <4D8CB859.9040709@inescporto.pt> <4D8CDDCC.4010000@ens-lyon.org> <4D8CEAA4.2030403@inescporto.pt> <1303244809.8429.1272.camel@thinkpad> <4DAE9278.4050701@inescporto.pt> Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:30:20 -0400 Message-ID: From: Markus Mottl To: Hugo Ferreira Cc: Gerd Stolpmann , Eray Ozkural , Martin Jambon , caml-list@inria.fr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by walapai.inria.fr id p3KCUNd1019825 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Efficient OCaml multicore -- roadmap? On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 03:59, Hugo Ferreira wrote: > Agreed. Currently I am using messaging via sexplib to send data-sets to > slaves for processing and returns results to a master process the same > way. But my objective is to share data structures and return partial > results to a master process. Returning results requires messaging. Btw., why not use bin-prot instead of sexplib for messaging? It is not human-readable, but otherwise comparable in convenience. It is very much more efficient (especially for numeric data), both in terms of processing speed and storage requirements. Regards, Markus -- Markus Mottl        http://www.ocaml.info        markus.mottl@gmail.com