On 19-12-2009, Erik Rigtorp wrote:
>
> Please fix OCaml! The first step would be to support multiple runtimes
> running in the same process communicating using message queues.
>
You should take a look at:
http://jocaml.inria.fr/
Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall
_
My understanding is that since jocaml uses the regular ocaml runtime, it
is also not multicore enabled.
Haskell is a functional language that has good performance that can use
multiple processors, but the learning curve is steeper and higher.
OCaml is a close relative of Standard ML, so there
> Jon Harrop :
> > Two cores is standard by
> > now, I'm used to 8, next year 32 and so on. OCaml will only become
> > more and more irrelevant. I hate to see that happening.
>
> Me too. The OCaml language will continue to kick ass for some time to
> come but INRIA's implementation is no longe
On 21-12-2009, Erik Rigtorp wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 17:18, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
>
> Even if I want to process a dataset and partition it and sends the
> work to multiple processes there is no framework in OCaml for me to
> use.
>
There are many frameworks at hand, just search for it:
-
On Saturday 19 December 2009 19:38:41 Jeff Shaw wrote:
> My understanding is that since jocaml uses the regular ocaml runtime, it
> is also not multicore enabled.
>
> Haskell is a functional language that has good performance
GHC and the Haskell language itself have serious performance problems.
Hi,
> It's too bad that INRIA is not interested in fixing this bug. No
> matter what people say I consider this a bug. Two cores is standard by
> now, I'm used to 8, next year 32 and so on. OCaml will only become
> more and more irrelevant. I hate to see that happening.
This is a perennial topic
Am Sonntag, den 20.12.2009, 08:47 -0500 schrieb Yaron Minsky:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Erik Rigtorp
> wrote:
> The first step for OCaml would be to be able to run multiple
> communicating instances of the runtime bound to one core each
> in one
> process
On Sunday 20 December 2009 14:27:00 Dario Teixeira wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > It's too bad that INRIA is not interested in fixing this bug. No
> > matter what people say I consider this a bug. Two cores is standard by
> > now, I'm used to 8, next year 32 and so on. OCaml will only become
> > more and more
> The following web page describes a commercial machine sold by Azul Systems
> that has up to 16 54-core CPUs (=864 cores) and 768 GB of memory in a flat
> SMP configuration:
>
> http://www.azulsystems.com/products/compute_appliance.htm
>
> As you can see, a GC with shared memory can already
On Monday 21 December 2009 01:08:14 Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
> > The following web page describes a commercial machine sold by Azul
> > Systems that has up to 16 54-core CPUs (=864 cores) and 768 GB of memory
> > in a flat SMP configuration:
> >
> > http://www.azulsystems.com/products/compute_applia
I find the ponderings on the popularity of OCaml to be of limited utility
--- those who pick OCaml based on its popularity are making a terrible
mistake. OCaml was a deeply unpopular language in 2005 and remains so
today, the variations notwithstanding. There are other good reasons to use
the lan
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 23:30, Jon Harrop wrote:
> Traffic here:
>
> 2007: 5814
> 2008: 4051
> 2009: 3071
That's because I don't have much time to post here nowaydays. I'm
sure if Jon followed my example, we would have a parallel GC for OCaml
by the end of the year.
Regards,
Markus
--
Markus
On Monday 21 December 2009 05:32:38 Markus Mottl wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 23:30, Jon Harrop wrote:
> > Traffic here:
> >
> > 2007: 5814
> > 2008: 4051
> > 2009: 3071
>
> That's because I don't have much time to post here nowaydays. I'm
> sure if Jon followed my example, we would have a pa
Am Dienstag, den 22.12.2009, 13:04 +0100 schrieb Erik Rigtorp:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 23:50, Erik Rigtorp wrote:
> > Some IPC Benchmarks, Solaris 10 on a quad core Intel Core2 Duo. The
> > benchmarks are running on a cpuset with 1 core. I measure the time
> > from sending in one process until
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 14:27, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
>
> Am Dienstag, den 22.12.2009, 13:04 +0100 schrieb Erik Rigtorp:
>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 23:50, Erik Rigtorp wrote:
>> > Some IPC Benchmarks, Solaris 10 on a quad core Intel Core2 Duo. The
>> > benchmarks are running on a cpuset with 1 cor
On Dec 20, 2009, at 8:08 PM, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
The following web page describes a commercial machine sold by Azul
Systems
that has up to 16 54-core CPUs (=864 cores) and 768 GB of memory in
a flat
SMP configuration:
http://www.azulsystems.com/products/compute_appliance.htm
As you can
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 09:21:09PM +, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
> On 21-12-2009, Erik Rigtorp wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 17:18, Gerd Stolpmann
> > wrote:
> >
> > Even if I want to process a dataset and partition it and sends the
> > work to multiple processes there is no framework in OC
Jon Harrop writes:
> We've discussed the problems with that before. Writing a parallel generic
> quicksort seems to be a good test of a decent multicore capable language
> implementation. Currently, F# is a *long* way ahead of everything open
> source.
How do you implement it?
1) divide at t
On Monday 21 December 2009 13:31:10 Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Jon Harrop writes:
> > We've discussed the problems with that before. Writing a parallel generic
> > quicksort seems to be a good test of a decent multicore capable language
> > implementation. Currently, F# is a *long* way ahead of
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 20:38, Jeff Shaw wrote:
> My understanding is that since jocaml uses the regular ocaml runtime, it is
> also not multicore enabled.
>
> Haskell is a functional language that has good performance that can use
> multiple processors, but the learning curve is steeper and highe
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 05:43, Jon Harrop wrote:
> As long as you're looking at OCaml's close relatives with multicore support,
> F# is your only viable option. Soon, HLVM will provide a cross-platform open
> source solution. If you look further you will also find Scala and Clojure.
F# is not via
Erik Rigtorp wrote:
> It's too bad that INRIA is not interested in fixing this bug.
Ask Santa Claus, you'll get it by Friday. Free shipping.
;-)
Martin
___
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listi
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Erik Rigtorp wrote:
> The first step for OCaml would be to be able to run multiple
> communicating instances of the runtime bound to one core each in one
> process and have them communicate via lock free queues.
We've done some experiments in this direction at J
On Sunday 20 December 2009 12:21:44 Erik Rigtorp wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 05:43, Jon Harrop wrote:
> > As long as you're looking at OCaml's close relatives with multicore
> > support, F# is your only viable option. Soon, HLVM will provide a
> > cross-platform open source solution. If you l
On 2009-12-20, at 13:21, Erik Rigtorp wrote:
The first step for OCaml would be to be able to run multiple
communicating instances of the runtime bound to one core each in one
process and have them communicate via lock free queues.
Does anyone know how to do lock-free queues in a weakly-consi
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 14:47, Yaron Minsky wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Erik Rigtorp wrote:
>>
>> The first step for OCaml would be to be able to run multiple
>> communicating instances of the runtime bound to one core each in one
>> process and have them communicate via lock free q
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 23:50, Erik Rigtorp wrote:
> Some IPC Benchmarks, Solaris 10 on a quad core Intel Core2 Duo. The
> benchmarks are running on a cpuset with 1 core. I measure the time
> from sending in one process until the other process receives the
> message. So a context switch and the me
> Erik Rigtorp :
> > Max/Min/Avg
> > * Pipes: 28205/5973/6259
> > * Unix domain sockets: 44256/7748/8153
> > * SYSv message queues: 19197/5895/6173
> > * Posix message queues: 37399/10965/11303
> > * TCP on loopback: 29017/7471/7885
> Some more benchmarks:
> Max/Min/Avg
> * Spinlocking shm: 50897/
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:50:36PM +0100, Erik Rigtorp wrote:
> Some IPC Benchmarks, Solaris 10 on a quad core Intel Core2 Duo. The
> benchmarks are running on a cpuset with 1 core. I measure the time
> from sending in one process until the other process receives the
> message. So a context switch
29 matches
Mail list logo
