If you have not seen this yet, this is where you want to start: http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/performance.html#%28part._effective-futures%29
Robby On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Jos Koot <jos.k...@telefonica.net> wrote: > I trieed some examples of my own. But I shall try the examples of the docs > ASAP. > More tomorrow, for now it's my bedtime. > Jos > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: robby.find...@gmail.com >> [mailto:robby.find...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robby Findler >> Sent: 17 January 2011 20:43 >> To: Jos Koot >> Cc: Noel Welsh; users@racket-lang.org >> Subject: Re: [racket] Efficiency of tight loops in Racket >> >> With futures you have to be careful; it is easy to write code >> that doesn't end up actually being parallel. Did you try the >> examples from the docs? >> >> Robby >> >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jos Koot >> <jos.k...@telefonica.net> wrote: >> > 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
