From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/46372 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Hans Hagen Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: distributed / parallel TeX? Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:22:06 +0100 Message-ID: <4948B6AE.80502@wxs.nl> References: <4946E2E2.1050108@sil.org> <49476213.9020709@elvenkind.com> <4948337B.5080608@sil.org> Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1229502796 18513 80.91.229.12 (17 Dec 2008 08:33:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:33:16 +0000 (UTC) To: mailing list for ConTeXt users Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Wed Dec 17 09:34:22 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.88] helo=ronja.ntg.nl) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LCrrE-0007Jk-Mc for gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:34:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF7A91FB30; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:33:01 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.ntg.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 27099-09; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:32:22 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1D461FBEF; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:28:32 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F8071FBEF for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:28:31 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.ntg.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 25728-03 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:27:46 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from mail.pragma-ade.net (dsl-083-247-100-017.solcon.nl [83.247.100.17]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 883471FB30 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:22:11 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from [10.100.1.100] (unverified [10.100.1.100]) by controller-1 (SurgeMail 3.9e) with ESMTP id 18139-1840426 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:22:11 +0100 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) In-Reply-To: <4948337B.5080608@sil.org> X-Originating-IP: 10.100.1.100 X-Authenticated-User: hagen@controller-1 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ntg.nl Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:46372 Archived-At: Lars Huttar wrote: > On 12/16/2008 3:15 PM, luigi scarso wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Taco Hoekwater > > wrote: >> >> >> Hi Lars, >> >> >> Lars Huttar wrote: > .... >> So the question comes up, can TeX runs take advantage of >> parallelized or >> distributed processing? >> >> >> No. For the most part, this is because of another requisite: for >> applications to make good use of threads, they have to deal with a >> problem that can be parallelized well. And generally speaking, >> typesetting does not fall in this category. A seemingly small change >> on page 4 can easily affect each and every page right to the end >> of the document. >> >> >> Also >> 3.11 Theory of page breaking >> www.cs.utk.edu/~eijkhout/594-LaTeX/handouts/TeX%20LaTeX%20 >> *course*.pdf > > Certainly that is a tough problem (particularly in regard to laying out > figures near the references to them). But again, if you can break down > the document into chunks that are fairly independent of each other (and > you almost always can for large texts), this problem seems no worse for > distributed processing than for sequential processing. For example, the > difficult part of laying out figures in Section 1 is confined to Section > 1; it does not particularly interact with Section 2. References in > Section 2 to Section 1 figures are going to be relatively distant from > those figures regardless of page breaking decisions. Thus the difficult > problem of page breaking is reduced to the sequential-processing case... > still a hard problem, but one that can be attacked in chunks. Indeed, > the greater amount of CPU time per page that is made available through > distributed processing may mean that the algorithms can do a better job > of page breaking than through sequential processing. you need to keep an eye on where tex spends its time on, and much is related to loading fonts, reading files, saving output, etc and with multiple threads one would have to coordinate that and make sure the time spent on it does not become larger overall for instance, in your document making these large tables takes a while only because bTABLE is not that fast, so when at some point i can redo part of such mechanisms in lua we might gain way more runtime than by running distributed Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl ----------------------------------------------------------------- ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________