Browse thread
Re: Why OCaml sucks
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Jon Harrop <jon@f...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks |
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 03:03:10 Gerd Stolpmann wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 13.05.2008, 02:19 +0100 schrieb Jon Harrop: > > On Tuesday 13 May 2008 01:42:42 Gerd Stolpmann wrote: > > > 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. Can you find a more accurate estimate of the threshold value of "n" above which there is a speedup on 2 cores? I think that would be very useful. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e