Re: Parallelizing (WAS: Death by pointers.)

Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Wed, 11 Oct 1995 13:27:43 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Death by pointers. (Was: order of argument evaluation in C++, etc.) johnston@imec.be (1995-08-30)
Re: Death by pointers. ECE@dwaf-hri.pwv.gov.za (John Carter) (1995-09-23)
Parallelizing (WAS: Death by pointers.) pardo@cs.washington.edu (1995-09-24)
Re: Parallelizing (WAS: Death by pointers.) ECE@dwaf-hri.pwv.gov.za (John Carter) (1995-09-29)
Re: Parallelizing (WAS: Death by pointers.) preston@tera.com (1995-09-29)
Re: Parallelizing (WAS: Death by pointers.) creedy@mitre.org (1995-10-02)
Re: Parallelizing (WAS: Death by pointers.) stefan.monnier@epfl.ch (Stefan Monnier) (1995-10-03)
Re: Parallelizing (WAS: Death by pointers.) imp@village.org (Warner Losh) (1995-10-11)
Re: Parallelizing (WAS: Death by pointers.) Martin.Jourdan@inria.fr (1995-10-18)
Re: Parallelizing (WAS: Death by pointers.) blume@zayin.cs.princeton.edu (1995-10-23)
Re: Parallelizing (WAS: Death by pointers.) wclodius@lanl.gov (1995-10-28)
Re: Parallelizing (WAS: Death by pointers.) cliffc@ami.sps.mot.com (1995-11-03)
Re: Parallelizing (WAS: Death by pointers.) chase@centerline.com (1995-11-06)
Re: Parallelizing (WAS: Death by pointers.) chase@centerline.com (1995-11-06)
[6 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Keywords: parallel, performance
Organization: The Village
References: 95-09-030 95-09-120 95-09-145
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 13:27:43 GMT

>[I once read an IBM tech report that claimed that 10 slow processors give you
>considerably less throughput than one 10X processor in most database
>applications because of increased lock contention on "hot spot" records.
>But I'm not sure that's a compiler issue. -John]


This is a general result from Queueing theory. If you have the choice
between one server that can operate at speed n, or m servers that
operate at speed n/m, then you will be better off to take the one
server at speed n. The average time in the system, and the average
wait time will be much lower.


A good reference for this can be found in Sheldon Ross' _Introduction
to Probability Models_. Third Adition. Academic Press, Inc. ISBN
0-12-598463-4. Orlando, 1985. In this edition, Chapter 8 presents
this result. As this book is intended for undergraduate studies (or
first year graduate studies), it limits its results to the M/M/1 and
M/M/k systems (although M/G/1 systems are treated briefly). M/M/1
means that the system's arrival time deltas have a Poison
distribution, as well as its servicing time having a Poison
distribution. This simple model covers a wide variety of systems.


Warner


--


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.