-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 10 July 2008 10:00:02 am Jon Harrop wrote: > Today's biggest shared-memory supercomputers already have thousands of > cores. > > > Also, this is a CNET article.. not exactly known for being in depth or > > well researched and this article is no exception. It is an article based > > entirely on a few speculative comments of some Intel guys. I wouldn't > > take it too seriously. > > > > Personally, I can see why the Caml development team opted not to put > > effort into dealing with shared-memory systems. > > The OCaml development team put huge effort into their concurrent run-time.
No, don't get me wrong, I'm all about concurrency and I'm glad the OCaml dev team put a lot of effort into it. I'm talking about specific optimizations for shared-memory architectures. > > It is a stop-gap solution... > > That is not true. Many-core machines will always be decomposed into > shared-memory clusters of as many cores as possible because shared memory > parallelism will always be orders of magnitude more efficient than > distributed parallelism. Hmm... that's a good point. Although, I want to point out that parallel algorithm design (and hardware design) isn't nearly as well studied. Peng -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFId3PnfIRcEFL/JewRApH6AKDBI5Wd95Gc6YIt/nvU41lIdiaw2ACfcONA YX8PCVBkcnSYkN3R8MC1yys= =rkJx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
