Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ginosko!uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen
From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Getting the most for a process.
Message-ID: <1029@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Date: 12 Oct 89 13:59:57 GMT
References: <593@cogent.UUCP> <12034@cgl.ucsf.EDU> <40090@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corp R&D Center
Lines: 19

In article <40090@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) writes:
|  application more than its "share" of CPU.  It's also a lot harder
|  because you have to coordinate processes so many people won't bother
|  unless they really need it or the system makes such a thing easy (I
|  have yet to see a system where it was particularly easy to parallelize
|  tasks effectively :-).

  The Encore version of make looks at an environment variable and
determines how many copies of the ccompilers to start. On a machine with
8 cpu's you get a blindingly fast make compared to doing the same thing
(in serial) on a faster machine.

  Several companies claim they do parallelizing within a process, but I
haven't got the measurements here and the guy who has them is on vacation.
-- 
bill davidsen	(davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
"The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called
'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see
that the world is flat!" - anon