Can extra processing threads help in this case?
in [MFC]
|
From: Hector Santos on 22 Mar 2010 11:14 Peter Olcott wrote: > A group with a more specialized focus is coming to the same > conclusions that I have derived. Oh Peter, you're fibbing! The simulator I provided is a classic example of an expert on the subject in action. If you wanted to learn anything here, you should study it. The process handler emulates your MEMORY ACCESS claims to the fullest extent with minimum OP CODES of any other work. Any engineer (and by the way, I am trained Chemical Engineer) with process control and simulation experience can easily see the work I showed as proof in invalidating your understanding and shows how multi-threads with shared memory is superior to your single main thread process idea. If you can see that in the code, then quite honestly, you don't know how to program or understand the concept of programming. -- HLS
From: Hector Santos on 22 Mar 2010 11:16 Joseph M. Newcomer wrote: > Note also if you use a memory-mapped file and two processes share the same mapping object > there is only one copy of the data in memory! THis has not previously come up in > discussions, but could be critical to your performance of multiple processes. > joe He has been told that MMF can help him. -- HLS
From: Hector Santos on 22 Mar 2010 11:26 Peter Olcott wrote: > (1) People in a more specialized group are coming to the > same conclusions that I have derived. You're lying. Stop the LYING! The code I posted proves it and if your group is real, show us. > (2) When a process requires essentially random (mostly > unpredictable) access to far more memory than can possibly > fit into the largest cache, then actual memory access time > becomes a much more significant factor in determining actual > response time. But you are thinking an ACCESSOR has exclusive access and is running uninterrupted 100% which is not the case here. In other words, while one thread is sleep, the other thread has full access to local or remote memory. The factor of "speed" can be factored out since it is constant across the board. The code I posted PROVES it! -- HLS
From: Peter Olcott on 22 Mar 2010 11:28 "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:%23A9xbJdyKHA.404(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Peter Olcott wrote: > > >> A group with a more specialized focus is coming to the >> same conclusions that I have derived. > > Oh Peter, you're fibbing! The simulator I provided is a > classic example of an expert on the subject in action. If > you wanted to learn anything here, you should study it. > > The process handler emulates your MEMORY ACCESS claims to > the fullest extent with minimum OP CODES of any other > work. Any engineer (and by the way, I am trained Chemical > Engineer) with process control and simulation experience > can easily see the work I showed as proof in invalidating > your understanding and shows how multi-threads with shared > memory is superior to your single main thread process > idea. > > If you can see that in the code, then quite honestly, you > don't know how to program or understand the concept of > programming. > > -- > HLS I am telling you the truth, I am almost compulsive about telling the truth. When the conclusions are final I will post a link here.
From: Peter Olcott on 22 Mar 2010 11:31
"Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:%23Q4$1KdyKHA.404(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Joseph M. Newcomer wrote: > > >> Note also if you use a memory-mapped file and two >> processes share the same mapping object >> there is only one copy of the data in memory! THis has >> not previously come up in >> discussions, but could be critical to your performance of >> multiple processes. >> joe > > > He has been told that MMF can help him. > > -- > HLS Since my process (currently) requires unpredictable access to far more memory than can fit into the largest cache, I see no possible way that adding 1000-fold slower disk access could possibly speed things up. This seems absurd to me. |