30 May
2011
30 May
'11
2:27 a.m.
Well, yes. A lot of early attempts at *anything* kind
of sucked. We
are now 20 odd years past the MPP "boom" of the mid 80s - I certainly
hope technology would have marched on during those years.
If your problem isn't embarrassingly parallel, you're doing the wrong problem.
Really.
Tim.
30 May
30 May
4:28 a.m.
Shoppa, Tim wrote:
10 GOTO 10
Parallelize THAT.
Peace... Sridhar
Well, yes. A
lot of early attempts at *anything* kind of sucked. We
are now 20 odd years past the MPP "boom" of the mid 80s - I certainly
hope technology would have marched on during those years.
If your problem isn't embarrassingly parallel, you're doing the wrong problem.
4:42 a.m.
On 5/29/2011 9:28 PM, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Shoppa, Tim wrote:
10 GOTO 10
Parallelize THAT.
Hmm Wrong Language.
10
please do Come from 10
Well,
yes. A lot of early attempts at *anything* kind of sucked. We
are now 20 odd years past the MPP "boom" of the mid 80s - I certainly
hope technology would have marched on during those years.
If your problem isn't embarrassingly parallel, you're doing the wrong
problem.
Peace... Sridhar
Still they make good movie props ... look at Jurassic Park.
Ben.
5 a.m.
On 5/29/11 11:28 PM, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
10 GOTO 10
Parallelize THAT.
Is the goal to decrease the execution time of one iteration, or
perform as many iterations as possible in one unit of time? ;)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Well, yes. A lot of early attempts at *anything* kind
of sucked. We
are now 20 odd years past the MPP "boom" of the mid 80s - I certainly
hope technology would have marched on during those years.
If your problem isn't embarrassingly parallel, you're doing the wrong
problem.
5:04 a.m.
Dave McGuire wrote:
On 5/29/11 11:28 PM, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
10 GOTO 10
Parallelize THAT.
Is the goal to decrease the execution time of one iteration, or perform
as many iterations as possible in one unit of time? ;)
Your question boils down to: Do we want the world's fastest NOP or the
most NOPs per second? :)
Peace... Sridhar
Well, yes. A lot of early attempts at *anything* kind
of sucked. We
are now 20 odd years past the MPP "boom" of the mid 80s - I certainly
hope technology would have marched on during those years.
If your problem isn't embarrassingly parallel, you're doing the wrong
problem.
5:06 a.m.
On 5/30/11 12:04 AM, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Is the goal to decrease the execution time of one iteration, or perform
as many iterations as possible in one unit of time? ;)
Your question boils down to: Do we want the world's fastest NOP or the
most NOPs per second? :)
Exactly! We really should have conversations like this when we're
drinking.
Oh, wait...we do! 8-D
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
> Well, yes.
A lot of early attempts at *anything* kind of sucked. We
> are now 20 odd years past the MPP "boom" of the mid 80s - I certainly
> hope technology would have marched on during those years.
If your problem isn't embarrassingly parallel, you're doing the wrong
problem.
10 GOTO 10
Parallelize THAT.
4740
days inactive
4740
days old
6 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
tshoppa＠wmata.com