search for: nbrofwork

Hi, I'm trying to understand the rationale for your proposed amount of splitting and more precisely why that one is THE one. If I put labels on your example numbers in one of your previous post: nbrOfElements <- 97 nbrOfWorkers <- 5 With these, there are two extremes in how you can split up the processing in chunks such that all workers are utilized: (A) Each worker, called multiple times, processes one element each time: > nbrOfElements <- 97 > nbrOfWorkers <- 5 > nbrOfChunks <- nbrOfElements &...

...com> wrote: >> Hi, I'm trying to understand the rationale for your proposed amount of >> splitting and more precisely why that one is THE one. >> >> If I put labels on your example numbers in one of your previous post: >> >> nbrOfElements <- 97 >> nbrOfWorkers <- 5 >> >> With these, there are two extremes in how you can split up the >> processing in chunks such that all workers are utilized: >> >> (A) Each worker, called multiple times, processes one element each >> time: >> >>> nbrOfElements <-...

...<henrik.bengtsson at gmail.com> wrote: >Hi, I'm trying to understand the rationale for your proposed amount of >splitting and more precisely why that one is THE one. > >If I put labels on your example numbers in one of your previous post: > > nbrOfElements <- 97 > nbrOfWorkers <- 5 > >With these, there are two extremes in how you can split up the >processing in chunks such that all workers are utilized: > >(A) Each worker, called multiple times, processes one element each >time: > >> nbrOfElements <- 97 >> nbrOfWorkers <- 5 &g...

...Hi, I'm trying to understand the rationale for your proposed amount of >>> splitting and more precisely why that one is THE one. >>> >>> If I put labels on your example numbers in one of your previous post: >>> >>> nbrOfElements <- 97 >>> nbrOfWorkers <- 5 >>> >>> With these, there are two extremes in how you can split up the >>> processing in chunks such that all workers are utilized: >>> >>> (A) Each worker, called multiple times, processes one element each >>> time: >>> >...

Dear R-Devel List, **TL;DR:** The function **parLapplyLB** of the parallel package has [reportedly][1] (see also attached RRD output) not been doing its job, i.e. not actually balancing the load. My colleague Dirk Sarpe and I found the cause of the problem and we also have a patch to fix it (attached). A similar fix has also been provided [here][2]. [1]: