I have not been following this thread closely but the notion of a threaded GNU Parallel troubles me. I use it to distribute jobs which may or may not be themselves multithreaded and I set --jobs according to the level of threading. I would not want to have to consider parallel's as part of the mix (unless of course I could force it to be single-threaded).
Sent from my iPad > On Aug 17, 2014, at 11:00 AM, ChessDoter <chessdo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > >> Am 17.08.2014 um 12:30 schrieb parallel-requ...@gnu.org: >> GNU Parallel is (as crazy as it sounds) mostly serial. > Ah! So you already understand what the weird point is. > But since fixing the problem at its root requires a different mindset, i > question if you want to do that NOW, as it might turn out to be quite a > difficult rewrite and not worth the effort at this point. > > Of course, as far as learning goes and the lifecycle of GNU Parallel in > general, it might very well be desirable - as a more longterm perspective - > to find a way into the realms of parallel processing. I guess a couple of > advantages would come from that. > > I myself might not be a good supporter at that stage, as neither do i have a > lot of experience in the problem field, nor am i using GNU Parallel a lot, i > am mostly using it as a replacement for xargs, because of its easier syntax. > > just my 2 cents. > regards >
