Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
Re: Why OCaml sucks
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Gerd Stolpmann <info@g...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks

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
------------------------------------------------------------