From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BE1BBBCA for ; Tue, 13 May 2008 04:01:56 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmwAAAmTKEjU4363mmdsb2JhbACBU5A+AQEBAQEIBQgHEQOZZAE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,476,1204498800"; d="scan'208";a="10642471" Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.183]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 13 May 2008 04:01:55 +0200 Received: from gate.lan.gerd-stolpmann.de (dslb-088-068-204-195.pools.arcor-ip.net [88.68.204.195]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu8) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0ML31I-1Jvjpy43Za-0001Ox; Tue, 13 May 2008 04:01:55 +0200 Received: from [192.168.0.32] (fw.lan.gerd-stolpmann.de [192.168.1.1]) by gate.lan.gerd-stolpmann.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98EEFC144; Tue, 13 May 2008 04:01:54 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks From: Gerd Stolpmann To: Jon Harrop Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <200805130219.23224.jon@ffconsultancy.com> References: <200805090139.54870.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <20080512132223.GA24858@annexia.org> <1210639362.478.6.camel@flake.lan.gerd-stolpmann.de> <200805130219.23224.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 04:03:10 +0200 Message-Id: <1210644190.478.8.camel@flake.lan.gerd-stolpmann.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18BgukVAukx4mha4yOSJfCMJxs0r5G2FsHwDRs kEBie/j3Bg5MqW0xwZjhxkaHfMc5Ttnq2RWxizzHuQ76ZI52P/ adyF6clHiFSG2ctOsgrVYqve6BHcrCx X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 gerd:01 stolpmann:01 gerd:01 stolpmann:01 ocaml:01 unoptimized:01 runtime:01 speedup:01 viktoriastr:01 64293:01 darmstadt:01 6151:01 6151:01 dienstag:98 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 ------------------------------------------------------------