parallel-processing

问题 Is memcached capable of making full use of multi-core? Or is there any way tuning this? 回答1: memcached is multi-threaded by default and has no problem saturating many cores. It's a bit harder to saturate all cores on more massively parallel boxes (e.g. a 256-core CMT box) just because it gets harder to get the data in and out of the network. If you find areas where some sort of contention is preventing you from saturating cores, file a bug or start a discussion. 回答2: memcached has "-t" option

问题 I'm studying the communication complexity of a parallel implementation of Quicksort in MPI and I've found something like this in a book: "A single process gathers p regular samples from each of the other p-1 processes. Since relatively few values are being passed, message latency is likely to be the dominant term of this step. Hence the communication complexity of the gather is O(log p)" (O is actually a theta and p is the number of processors). The same affirmation is made for the broadcast

问题 I'm studying the communication complexity of a parallel implementation of Quicksort in MPI and I've found something like this in a book: "A single process gathers p regular samples from each of the other p-1 processes. Since relatively few values are being passed, message latency is likely to be the dominant term of this step. Hence the communication complexity of the gather is O(log p)" (O is actually a theta and p is the number of processors). The same affirmation is made for the broadcast

问题 I've been testing the performance of System.Threading.Parallel vs a Threading and I'm surprised to see Parallel taking longer to finish tasks than threading. I'm sure it's due to my limited knowledge of Parallel, which I just started reading up on. I thought i'll share few snippets and if anyone can point out to me paralle code is running slower vs threaded code. Also tried to run the same comparison for finding prime numbers and found parallel code finishing much later than threaded code.

问题 I've been testing the performance of System.Threading.Parallel vs a Threading and I'm surprised to see Parallel taking longer to finish tasks than threading. I'm sure it's due to my limited knowledge of Parallel, which I just started reading up on. I thought i'll share few snippets and if anyone can point out to me paralle code is running slower vs threaded code. Also tried to run the same comparison for finding prime numbers and found parallel code finishing much later than threaded code.

问题 I've been testing the performance of System.Threading.Parallel vs a Threading and I'm surprised to see Parallel taking longer to finish tasks than threading. I'm sure it's due to my limited knowledge of Parallel, which I just started reading up on. I thought i'll share few snippets and if anyone can point out to me paralle code is running slower vs threaded code. Also tried to run the same comparison for finding prime numbers and found parallel code finishing much later than threaded code.

问题 I've been testing the performance of System.Threading.Parallel vs a Threading and I'm surprised to see Parallel taking longer to finish tasks than threading. I'm sure it's due to my limited knowledge of Parallel, which I just started reading up on. I thought i'll share few snippets and if anyone can point out to me paralle code is running slower vs threaded code. Also tried to run the same comparison for finding prime numbers and found parallel code finishing much later than threaded code.

问题 For starters, I have to say I'm completely new to parallel computing (and know close to nothing about computer science), so my understanding of what things like "workers" or "processes" actually are is very limited. I do however have a question about running a simple for-loop that presumably has no dependencies between the iterations in parallel. Let's say I wanted to do the following: for N in 1:5:20 println("The N of this iteration in $N") end If I simply wanted these messages to appear on

问题 For starters, I have to say I'm completely new to parallel computing (and know close to nothing about computer science), so my understanding of what things like "workers" or "processes" actually are is very limited. I do however have a question about running a simple for-loop that presumably has no dependencies between the iterations in parallel. Let's say I wanted to do the following: for N in 1:5:20 println("The N of this iteration in $N") end If I simply wanted these messages to appear on

问题 Let's say i have a List<Integer> ints = new ArrayList<>(); and i want to add values to it and compare the results of parallel execution using forEach() and Collectors.toList() . First i add to this list some values from an sequential IntStream and forEach: IntStream.range(0,10).boxed().forEach(ints::add); And i get the correct result: ints ==> [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] Now i .clear() the list and do the same thing in parallel: IntStream.range(0,10).parallel().boxed().forEach(ints::add);