On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 11:55 AM, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>  On May 6, 2008, at 2:19 PM, Mike Hansen wrote:
>
>  >> Probably not so cool, since it would be like 50 machines vs one
>  >> machine.
>  >
>  > Sure, but the Mathematica blog post is scalablity: "In Mathematica, a
>  > core principle is that everything should be scalable. So in my job of
>  > creating algorithms for Mathematica I have to make sure that
>  > everything I produce is scalable."
>
>  But Pari's algorithm is already parallelisable (just farm off a bunch
>  of euler factors to each thread).

Yep.  I was about to point out that I was joking in my remark about
parallelizing your code.   I certainly agree with the above suggested
way to parallelize computing zeta.

>
>  The only advantage my algorithm has in "scalability" is that each
>  thread needs only O(1) memory, instead of O(n log n) which would be
>  required for Pari's algorithm. So if memory were tight, but you had
>  lots of processors, and your n was really big, then perhaps this
>  algorithm would win. But when I think about the actual numbers
>  involved, the economics just don't work out. Even 80 processors is a
>  pathetically small number, given a 50x serial slowdown in the
>  algorithm. You would need thousands of cpus to even consider this
>  approach. And even then, it would only be worthwhile if each cpu had
>  very limited memory.

Hmm... That's exactly the configuration of a lot of interesting supercomputers
these days.   See
   
http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research_projects.nsf/pages/bluegene.index.html
They have these single-cabinet tiny memory 1024 processor machines...

-- 
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to