I have seen these pages before. There are many caveats and I probably went into them. I'll try to do the mandelbrot example in its various versions and compare their timings, while observing CPU usage. Jos
> -----Original Message----- > From: robby.find...@gmail.com > [mailto:robby.find...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robby Findler > Sent: 17 January 2011 21:56 > To: Jos Koot > Cc: Noel Welsh; users@racket-lang.org > Subject: Re: [racket] Efficiency of tight loops in Racket > > If you have not seen this yet, this is where you want to start: > > http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/performance.html#%28part._ef fective-futures%29 > > Robby > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Jos Koot > <jos.k...@telefonica.net> wrote: > > I trieed some examples of my own. But I shall try the > examples of the > > docs ASAP. > > More tomorrow, for now it's my bedtime. > > Jos > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: robby.find...@gmail.com > >> [mailto:robby.find...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robby Findler > >> Sent: 17 January 2011 20:43 > >> To: Jos Koot > >> Cc: Noel Welsh; users@racket-lang.org > >> Subject: Re: [racket] Efficiency of tight loops in Racket > >> > >> With futures you have to be careful; it is easy to write code that > >> doesn't end up actually being parallel. Did you try the > examples from > >> the docs? > >> > >> Robby > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jos Koot > <jos.k...@telefonica.net> > >> wrote: > >> > I did try futures, but did not observe two processors being used > >> > simultaneously. > >> > Jos > >> > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: robby.find...@gmail.com > >> >> [mailto:robby.find...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robby Findler > >> >> Sent: 17 January 2011 20:22 > >> >> To: Jos Koot > >> >> Cc: Noel Welsh; users@racket-lang.org > >> >> Subject: Re: [racket] Efficiency of tight loops in Racket > >> >> > >> >> Oh, yes. DrRacket does not try to use two processors > for anything > >> >> (unless your program uses futures or places, of course). > >> >> > >> >> Robby > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Jos Koot > >> <jos.k...@telefonica.net> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > Thanks for your reply. > >> >> > What I am observing is that when running DrScheme > >> without any other > >> >> > apps running, only one processor is used at a time, > >> >> although control > >> >> > often swichtes bnetween the two processors. I also > observe that > >> >> > windows 7 aborts DrScheme when more than 2Gbyte of > >> memory is being > >> >> > used. I have set the memory limit of DrScheme to > infite and for > >> >> > windows to about 5 Gbyte. Under windows xp virtual memory > >> >> did function > >> >> > well, but that was with 1 Gbyte of memory and > trashing made it > >> >> > impossible to go up to 2 Gbyte. Now I have two cores of 2 > >> >> Gbyte, but can't put my machine to thrash on page swapping. > >> >> > Jos > >> >> > > >> >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> >> From: robby.find...@gmail.com > >> >> >> [mailto:robby.find...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robby Findler > >> >> >> Sent: 17 January 2011 16:14 > >> >> >> To: Noel Welsh > >> >> >> Cc: Jos Koot; users@racket-lang.org > >> >> >> Subject: Re: [racket] Efficiency of tight loops in Racket > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I think the real reason is actually much sadder: no one on > >> >> the core > >> >> >> team regularly uses windows. Well, until about a month > >> ago, when I > >> >> >> started using windows for my development tasks so > >> >> hopefully that'll > >> >> >> change. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> But I'm not sure what Jos is observing and I was > >> expecting a reply > >> >> >> from Kevin or Matthew on this -- places are still pretty > >> >> >> experimental. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Robby > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Noel Welsh > >> <noelwe...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > I've seen lots of recent commits dealing w/ Windows 7 > >> / 64-bit > >> >> >> > support, so I expect it is simply time. Windows is not > >> >> as developer > >> >> >> > friendly as Unix so likely to receive new features last (as > >> >> >> a guess). > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > N. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Jos Koot > >> >> >> <jos.k...@telefonica.net> wrote: > >> >> >> >> Is there a specific reason why there is no parallel > >> >> >> support for place > >> >> >> >> on a dual core processor with Windows 7. > >> >> >> >> Thanks, Jos > >> >> >> > _________________________________________________ > >> >> >> > For list-related administrative tasks: > >> >> >> > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
