From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <thomas.braibant@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0F997ED26
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Wed,  6 Jun 2012 22:52:30 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AicCAL3Cz0/RVaG2imdsb2JhbABFtDEIIgEBAQoJDQcSBiOCGAEBAQMBEgIsARsdAQMBCwYFCwM4IgERAQUBHAY1h1oBAwYFmiMJA4wignCEdAoZJw1XiHEBBQyLIIV1A5Udjh0+hBuBOgk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,725,1330902000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="146820611"
Received: from mail-gg0-f182.google.com ([209.85.161.182])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 06 Jun 2012 22:52:30 +0200
Received: by ggnm2 with SMTP id m2so8124900ggn.27
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :cc:content-type;
        bh=gJru1WVlmFHZoenZDxeS90ib7SdsWrzsVTYLklyTQI4=;
        b=cR3JvxnWhiNJJMLsBKImvO0QyY8o9Lpw9iHrYrjNLKmHcqSzIibrZlDf9ZoS+An9Ay
         /VzgLXlgc9we3/Wi4g/CHuclof4j69VT36VhaEWc56fkN+r3MOtgOW/1iBzBpkzkd9ya
         ZgxVs4Pg3fNwqsaYyGk3Y2QcQ2B+4Xtek6COL2JaVJVyluWemJKbJqiUoVDOAIGs1JDm
         tbH6udA4lVl+uRYaObhBBHrSNime3V5Hn/IaS8p2jKVBSFBLhU1IuDcXuVoknunWRw3k
         K5clUQwj1hVcIpw42DbvLOiP5B04xZJYrd2yCgpmFqX4KkzM3ph+AiFUf1fl7l92wI4z
         dnbQ==
Received: by 10.50.189.234 with SMTP id gl10mr8198991igc.59.1339015948456;
 Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.136.135 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1339005692.4950.2@samsung>
References: <CAHR=VkxRi3G3mtgCmWqByGirJZNjM6vv6y26RKmUsj_wXmnJ_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <1339005692.4950.2@samsung>
From: Thomas Braibant <thomas.braibant@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:52:08 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHR=VkzFnTY_7=5esH-L5wZ-fGLT7KkwuVi-ZbLPev+Uvj1L-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gerd Stolpmann <info@gerd-stolpmann.de>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Distributed computing libraries

> These are very different pieces of software, because they tackle problems at
> various abstraction levels. ocmc is the most level-level here, as it "only"
> tries to improve the runtime so that threads can be run in parallel on
> multiple cores. That's it, there is no additional abstraction on top of the
> standard threading API - no distribution, no computing.
>
> JoCaml uses the normal multi-threading in the runtime, but integrates it
> differently into the language. So, it adds abstraction, but you are still
> limited to a single core.
>
> So far I know, all the other libraries base on multi-processing to run
> programs on multiple cores. Plasma is the only one with true distribution
> capabiltiies beyond a single computer, but the price is that you must use
> the map/reduce scheme, whereas functory or parmap leave you more freedom.
> However, all multi-processing approaches share the property that the data
> flow is limited by process boundaries (unless you go really low-level and
> also take Netmulticore into consideration (part of Ocamlnet), which uses
> shared memory to overcome these limitations).
>
> I don't know what you are exactly looking for. Knowing the problem it would
> be easier to recommend something.

Thanks a lot for this answer.

As I said in another email, I do not have a problem to solve right
now. But, I was tickled by the Parmap announce, and I wondered how it
fared with the other related systems I knew about. (Yet, I reckon that
I should have made the question more precise, with a detailed lists of
criteria, akin to what Oliver suggested.)

In my mind, asking on the list was the best way to make a good summary
of the current situation on this front. (But I am afraid I do not know
the best place to make public this kind of summaries.)