> Computer have been invented to automate repetitive task. I don't know > what you have to do, but I'm sure you can find a way not doing it one by > one.
Yep, I'm sure I will ... > -----Original Message----- > From: cyrille henry [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2019 11:35 PM > To: Ingo; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [SPAM] RE: [PD] [SPAM] [pd~] and sharing sample tables > > > > Le 22/09/2019 17:48, Ingo a crit : > > Thanks a lot, Cyrille! > > > > I'll have to see howthis works and how I will get my 10,000+ tables to > > work with this. > > Looks like I might have to do one by one or am I wrong? > Computer have been invented to automate repetitive task. I don't know > what you have to do, but I'm sure you can find a way not doing it one by > one. > > > C > > > > > Ingo > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Pd-list [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > >> cyrille henry > >> Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2019 2:35 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [PD] [SPAM] [pd~] and sharing sample tables > >> > >> hello, > >> > >> > >> Le 22/09/2019 13:49, Ingo a crit : > >>> Hi everybody, > >>> > >>> I have 3 questions about using the [pd~] object in an efficient way. > >>> I'm trying to spread some heavy sample voices over multiple > >>> processor > >> cores. > >>> > >>> 1) > >>> How can I read from common sample tables (or other parameter tables > >>> as > >>> well) without having to load all sample (1 GB of samples) multiple > >>> times? > >>> In the back of my head I think I heard about a "share memory" > >>> library but couldn't find anything so far. > >> have a look at shmem, in deken. > >> > >>> > >>> 2) > >>> How can I assign a specific [pd~] process to a certain core? > >>> Or does Pd automatically assign a new [pd~] process to another core? > >>> It would obviously not improve anything if both patches were running > >>> on the same cpu core . > >> > >> This is what the OS is made for. In my experience, it just work. > >> > >>> > >>> 3) > >>> Is there a way that the [pd~] subprocess can receive the [send] > >>> objects directly from the main process without having to resend each > >>> individual send/receive object to the inlet of the sub process and > >>> without having to build a receive object and then resend it by > >>> prepending a header that can resend everything within the sub process? > >> > >> No. > >> but this workaround can be nicely hidden in an abstraction. > >> you can create a [mysend] abstraction that is composed by a [send $1] > >> and a [list prepend $1] connected to a [send to_my_pd_tilde_object] > etc... > >> > >> > >>> > >>> I'm having a fairly large amount (185) of sends/receive objects and > >>> tables (way more than 10,000 tables!). > >>> Anything that might cut down the work and makes it more efficient to > >>> run would be great! > >> > >> you can search and replace all "send" to "mysend" on a pd patch using > >> any text editor. > >> > >> cheers > >> C > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks a lot! > >>> Ingo > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> [email protected] mailing list > >>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > >>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> [email protected] mailing list > >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > >> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > > > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
