bos: > On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 10:43 AM, FFT <fft1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Are MPI bindings still the best way of using Haskell on Beowulf > > clusters? It's my feeling that the bindings stagnated, or are they > > just very mature? > > > MPI itself hasn't changed in 14 years, so it's not exactly a moving target. > (There's an MPI 2.0, but its most visible changes are not really usable.) > > > What's the story with distributed memory multiprocessing? Are Haskell > programmers uninterested in it, or are things other than MPI used with > it? > > > The ratio of work to payoff is unfortunately very high, so it seems to have > been abandoned as a topic of fruitful research.
Though note the new paper for ICPP: "In this paper, we investigate the differences and tradeoffs imposed by two parallel Haskell dialects running on multicore machines. GpH and Eden are both constructed using the highly-optimising sequential GHC compiler, and share thread scheduling, and other elements, from a common code base. The GpH implementation investigated here uses a physically-shared heap, which should be well-suited to multicore architectures. In contrast, the Eden implementation adopts an approach that has been designed for use on distributed-memory parallel machines " http://www-fp.cs.st-and.ac.uk/~kh/mainICPP09.pdf -- Don _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe