On Sunday, February 16, 2014 10:43:53 AM UTC-6, Trevor Vaughan wrote: > > > [...] this may not happen but it would still be nice to have. > > >
Well, I think the question that killed this thread the first time boils down to "would it really?". The speculation at the time was that parallel execution would produce disappointing wall-time gains, based on the assertion that the catalog application process is largely I/O bound. There were also some assertions that Ruby doesn't do shared-memory parallelism very well. Nobody reported any actual analysis of any of that, though. Whatever benefit there might be needs to be weighed against the costs, which include not just the direct costs of developing the feature, but also the ongoing costs of added code complexity and increased maintenance burden. Were I PL, I would be very hesitant to devote resources to such a speculative project as I think this would be. Were I a user interested in such a feature and having time available, I might consider having a go the project myself. Working code trumps predictive analysis every time. John -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-users/6bb31477-57ef-4035-9c0c-ffc0b6d757d5%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
