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=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08461BBCA for ; Tue, 13 May 2008 05:17:56 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AicCAJikKEjUnw6Db2dsb2JhbACCMY9gAQoHAgQHEwOZZA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,477,1204498800"; d="scan'208";a="12152219" Received: from pih-relay04.plus.net ([212.159.14.131]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 13 May 2008 05:17:55 +0200 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by pih-relay04.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1Jvl1W-0005kp-SP; Tue, 13 May 2008 04:17:55 +0100 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: Gerd Stolpmann Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 04:13:00 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr References: <200805090139.54870.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <200805130219.23224.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <1210644190.478.8.camel@flake.lan.gerd-stolpmann.de> In-Reply-To: <1210644190.478.8.camel@flake.lan.gerd-stolpmann.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200805130413.00683.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Plusnet-Relay: cb67b46a3fcd7bb16068c06b784307d4 X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 gerd:01 stolpmann:01 gerd:01 stolpmann:01 unoptimized:01 runtime:01 speedup:01 speedup:01 dienstag:98 frog:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 passing:05 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