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 <mike.pech...@gmail.com> 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
