Re: later vs. co

[Joe Bogner]

Great! To add to the dialog, I am not surprised by co/in-row being
similar. I might have actually thought that co would be slightly
slower. This task is CPU bound which won't get any benefit from
switching coroutines, whereas later spawns new processes (workers) to
take advantage of multi-core.

Thanks for sharing.

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Mike Pechkin  wrote:
> hi,
>
> https://bitbucket.org/mihailp/tankfeeder/raw/43d62edb11d56b4ffada4f728ab59b5455c97fbc/pow.l
>
> https://bitmessage.org/wiki/Proof_of_work
>
>
> I've implement more two versions for calculation Bitmessage POW on (later)
> and (co) functions. It works.
> environment:
> o) DELL PowerEdge 430 (modern)
> o) Centos 7
> o) pil64
> o) equal number (64) of workers for later and co.
>
> bench:
> o) in-row ~10 secs
> o) co ~10 secs
> o) later ~2 secs
>
> p.s. I will add all this code to bundle of tests for future releases.
>
> Mike
>
-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: later vs. co

[Alexander Burger]

Hi Mike,

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 05:01:24PM +0200, Mike Pechkin wrote:
> https://bitbucket.org/mihailp/tankfeeder/raw/43d62edb11d56b4ffada4f728ab59b5455c97fbc/pow.l
> 
> https://bitmessage.org/wiki/Proof_of_work

Great news! Thanks!

♪♫ Alex
-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

later vs. co

[Mike Pechkin]

hi,

https://bitbucket.org/mihailp/tankfeeder/raw/43d62edb11d56b4ffada4f728ab59b5455c97fbc/pow.l

https://bitmessage.org/wiki/Proof_of_work


I've implement more two versions for calculation Bitmessage POW on (later)
and (co) functions. It works.
environment:
o) DELL PowerEdge 430 (modern)
o) Centos 7
o) pil64
o) equal number (64) of workers for later and co.

bench:
o) in-row ~10 secs
o) co ~10 secs
o) later ~2 secs

p.s. I will add all this code to bundle of tests for future releases.

Mike