[racket] Efficiency of tight loops in Racket

I have seen these pages before. There are many caveats and I probably went
into them. I'll try to do the mandelbrot example in its various versions and
compare their timings, while observing CPU usage.
Jos

> -----Original Message-----
> From: robby.findler at gmail.com 
> [mailto:robby.findler at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robby Findler
> Sent: 17 January 2011 21:56
> To: Jos Koot
> Cc: Noel Welsh; users at racket-lang.org
> Subject: Re: [racket] Efficiency of tight loops in Racket
> 
> If you have not seen this yet, this is where you want to start:
> 
> http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/performance.html#%28part._ef
fective-futures%29
> 
> Robby
> 
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Jos Koot 
> <jos.koot at 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.findler at gmail.com
> >> [mailto:robby.findler at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robby Findler
> >> Sent: 17 January 2011 20:43
> >> To: Jos Koot
> >> Cc: Noel Welsh; users at 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.koot at telefonica.net> 
> >> wrote:
> >> > I did try futures, but did not observe two processors being used 
> >> > simultaneously.
> >> > Jos
> >> >
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: robby.findler at gmail.com
> >> >> [mailto:robby.findler at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robby Findler
> >> >> Sent: 17 January 2011 20:22
> >> >> To: Jos Koot
> >> >> Cc: Noel Welsh; users at 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.koot at 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.findler at gmail.com
> >> >> >> [mailto:robby.findler at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robby Findler
> >> >> >> Sent: 17 January 2011 16:14
> >> >> >> To: Noel Welsh
> >> >> >> Cc: Jos Koot; users at 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
> >> <noelwelsh at 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.koot at 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
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >