Hi Paul, Thanks for your message, but I'm not 100% clear on your meaning. Could you unpack your logic a bit? Is this because two (+) sub-processes that are begun at precisely the same time will both have the same set.seed value (by default) for any RNG?
Matt On 4/9/07, Paul Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthew Keller wrote: > > Hi Ramon, > > > > I've been interested in responses to your question. I have what I > > think is a similar issue - I have a very large simulation script and > > would like to be able to modularize it by having a main script that > > calls lots of subscripts - > For simulations you need to worry about the random number generator > sequence. I think snow has a scheme for handling this. If you devise > your own system then be sure to look after this (non-trivial) detail. > > Paul Gilbert > > but I haven't done that yet because the > > only way I could think to do it was to call a subscript, have it run, > > save the objects from the subscript, and then call those objects back > > into the main script, which seems like a very slow and onerous way to > > do it. > > > > Would Rserve do what I'm looking for? > > > > On 4/7/07, Ramon Diaz-Uriarte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Dear All, > >> > >> The "clients.txt" file of the latest Rserve package, by Simon Urbanek, > >> says, regarding its R client, > >> > >> "(...) a simple R client, i.e. it allows you to connect to Rserve from > >> R itself. It is very simple and limited, because Rserve was not > >> primarily meant for R-to-R communication (there are better ways to do > >> that), but it is useful for quick interactive connection to an Rserve > >> farm." > >> > >> Which are those better ways to do it? I am thinking about using Rserve > >> to have an R process send jobs to a bunch of Rserves in different > >> machines. It is like what we could do with Rmpi (or pvm), but without > >> the MPI layer. Therefore, presumably it'd be easier to deal with > >> network problems, machine's failures, using checkpoints, etc. (i.e., > >> to try to get better fault tolerance). > >> > >> It seems that Rserve would provide the basic infrastructure for doing > >> that and saves me from reinventing the wheel of using sockets, etc, > >> directly from R. > >> > >> However, Simon's comment about better ways of R-to-R communication > >> made me wonder if this idea really makes sense. What is the catch? > >> Have other people tried similar approaches? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> R. > >> > >> -- > >> Ramon Diaz-Uriarte > >> Statistical Computing Team > >> Structural Biology and Biocomputing Programme > >> Spanish National Cancer Centre (CNIO) > >> http://ligarto.org/rdiaz > >> > >> ______________________________________________ > >> [email protected] mailing list > >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > >> PLEASE do read the posting guide > >> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > >> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > >> > >> > > > > > > > ==================================================================================== > > La version française suit le texte anglais. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This email may contain privileged and/or confidential info...{{dropped}} ______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
