Am Dienstag, den 20.05.2008, 15:49 +0200 schrieb Leonardo Valeri Manera:
2008/5/19 Mikael More [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi!
I just emailed with Guillaume Germain, the author of Termite. He said it
should be quite easy to port Termite to Chicken. Is anyone up for that?
Me not really. But
On May 20, 2008, at 8:04 PM, Ivan Raikov wrote:
Answers embedded below:
Alaric Snell-Pym [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, as far as I can tell, MPI seems to have a fairly static view of
the world as having a fixed number of processes in it upon startup,
so the following (in Erlang) comes
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Mark Fredrickson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do believe that one can start a new Erlang VM and add it to the cloud at
any time, but I get the impression this is actually rare. With n cores, why
not just start a VM on each core to begin with?
A year or two ago,
It appears that I was wrong about not being able to start MPI
processes dynamically. The MPI-2 standard does include a procedure
MPI_Comm_spawn which can be used to create MPI processes from a master
process. In fact, one of the main motivations for MPI-2 was to break
free from the static
2008/5/19 Mikael More [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi!
I just emailed with Guillaume Germain, the author of Termite. He said it
should be quite easy to port Termite to Chicken. Is anyone up for that?
Not me, though I'd love to see termite on chicken - erlang-style
concurrency is win :)
Cheers,
Leo
There is already Erlang-style concurrency in Chicken via the MPI
egg.
-Ivan
Leonardo Valeri Manera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2008/5/19 Mikael More [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi!
I just emailed with Guillaume Germain, the author of Termite. He said it
should be quite easy to port Termite
On 20 May 2008, at 3:10 pm, Ivan Raikov wrote:
There is already Erlang-style concurrency in Chicken via the MPI
egg.
IIRC there's more to it than that. As well as passing messages back
and forth, Erlang also has mechanisms for passing uncaught exceptions
in the top-levels of processes
2008/5/20 Ivan Raikov [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There is already Erlang-style concurrency in Chicken via the MPI
egg.
MPI is very nice Ivan - its not really the same kind of thing as Termite though.
In any case, I can't use MPI in any of my projects - its straight GPL.
Termite is BSD, so I'd like
Ok, can you show a Termite example that cannot be implemented with MPI?
Leonardo Valeri Manera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MPI is very nice Ivan - its not really the same kind of thing as Termite
though.
In any case, I can't use MPI in any of my projects - its straight GPL.
Termite is
I am confused -- you talk about passing uncaught exceptions back to
processes waiting for messages, and then you talk about preventing
deadlock situations in a seemingly different scenario. Perhaps you
would like to show some code examples? I don't know who is this
process-management model and
2008/5/20 Ivan Raikov [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ok, can you show a Termite example that cannot be implemented with MPI?
I'm sure its possble to implement most if not all, but, termite
provides those parts of the erlang model which make the
message-passing model interesting already, without needing
On 20 May 2008, at 3:16 pm, Alaric Snell-Pym wrote:
IIRC there's more to it than that. As well as passing messages back
and forth, Erlang also has mechanisms for passing uncaught exceptions
in the top-levels of processes back to processes waiting for messages
from that process... or something
Well, of course, it is possible to implement anything in a
Turing-equivalent language, but I am curious what features of Erlang
or Termite are difficult to implement with MPI primitives and
Scheme. For example, process migration in Scheme MPI could be simply
passing a continuation from one node
On 20 May 2008, at 3:27 pm, Ivan Raikov wrote:
Perhaps you
would like to show some code examples? I don't know who is this
process-management model and why I care about it, but I would like
to see some examples of actual working code that cannot be reproduced
with the MPI library.
Well, as
Ok, point taken about dynamic spawning of new processes. We have hot
code loading and modules in Chicken. MPI has MPI_Disconnect,MPI_Wait
and MPI_Test, which are not incorporated in the mpi egg, but could be
used for monitoring process termination. The group communication
facilities of MPI are
Answers embedded below:
Alaric Snell-Pym [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, as far as I can tell, MPI seems to have a fairly static view of
the world as having a fixed number of processes in it upon startup,
Correct. This helps with communication transport optimizations --
when you create
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Ivan Raikov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, of course, it is possible to implement anything in a
Turing-equivalent language, but I am curious what features of Erlang
or Termite are difficult to implement with MPI primitives and
Scheme. For example, process
(Assuming (use mpi s11n))
(continuation-capture (lambda (x) (MPI:send (serialize `(process ,x)) dest tag
comm)))
Where:
* x: the current continuation
* `(process DATUM): a message in a hypothetical high-level protocol
for process migration
* dest: the destination process ID
Hi!
I just emailed with Guillaume Germain, the author of Termite. He said it
should be quite easy to port Termite to Chicken. Is anyone up for that?
Mikael
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
19 matches
Mail list logo
