I did try futures, but did not observe two processors being used simultaneously. Jos
> -----Original Message----- > From: robby.find...@gmail.com > [mailto:robby.find...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robby Findler > Sent: 17 January 2011 20:22 > To: Jos Koot > Cc: Noel Welsh; users@racket-lang.org > Subject: Re: [racket] Efficiency of tight loops in Racket > > Oh, yes. DrRacket does not try to use two processors for > anything (unless your program uses futures or places, of course). > > Robby > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Jos Koot > <jos.k...@telefonica.net> wrote: > > Thanks for your reply. > > What I am observing is that when running DrScheme without any other > > apps running, only one processor is used at a time, > although control > > often swichtes bnetween the two processors. I also observe that > > windows 7 aborts DrScheme when more than 2Gbyte of memory is being > > used. I have set the memory limit of DrScheme to infite and for > > windows to about 5 Gbyte. Under windows xp virtual memory > did function > > well, but that was with 1 Gbyte of memory and trashing made it > > impossible to go up to 2 Gbyte. Now I have two cores of 2 > Gbyte, but can't put my machine to thrash on page swapping. > > Jos > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: robby.find...@gmail.com > >> [mailto:robby.find...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robby Findler > >> Sent: 17 January 2011 16:14 > >> To: Noel Welsh > >> Cc: Jos Koot; users@racket-lang.org > >> Subject: Re: [racket] Efficiency of tight loops in Racket > >> > >> I think the real reason is actually much sadder: no one on > the core > >> team regularly uses windows. Well, until about a month ago, when I > >> started using windows for my development tasks so > hopefully that'll > >> change. > >> > >> But I'm not sure what Jos is observing and I was expecting a reply > >> from Kevin or Matthew on this -- places are still pretty > >> experimental. > >> > >> Robby > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Noel Welsh <noelwe...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > I've seen lots of recent commits dealing w/ Windows 7 / 64-bit > >> > support, so I expect it is simply time. Windows is not > as developer > >> > friendly as Unix so likely to receive new features last (as > >> a guess). > >> > > >> > N. > >> > > >> > On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Jos Koot > >> <jos.k...@telefonica.net> wrote: > >> >> Is there a specific reason why there is no parallel > >> support for place > >> >> on a dual core processor with Windows 7. > >> >> Thanks, Jos > >> > _________________________________________________ > >> > For list-related administrative tasks: > >> > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users > >> > > > > > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
