similar to: parLapply fails to detect default cluster?

Thank you for your answer! I agree with you except for the 3 (Error) example and I realize now I should have started with that in the explanation. >From my point of view parLapply(cl = clu, X = 1:2, fun = fun, c = 1) shouldn't give an error. This could be easily avoided by using all the argument names in the custerApply call of parLapply which means changing, parLapply <-

On 03/15/2018 05:25 PM, Henrik Bengtsson wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:39 AM, <FlorianSchwendinger at gmx.at> wrote: >> Thank you for your answer! >> I agree with you except for the 3 (Error) example and >> I realize now I should have started with that in the explanation. >> >> From my point of view >> parLapply(cl = clu, X = 1:2, fun = fun, c =

Hi! I recognized that the argument matching of clusterApply (and therefore parLapply) goes wrong when one of the arguments of the function is called "c". In this case, the argument "c" is used as cluster and the functions give the following error message "Error in checkCluster(cl) : not a valid cluster". Of course, "c" is for many reasons an unfortunate

Dear R-user, I am trying to use the function 'parLapply' from the 'snow' package which is supposed to work the same wys as 'lapply' but for a parallelized cluster of computers. The function I am trying to call in parallel is 'dudi.pca' (from the 'ade4' package) which performs principal component analyses. When I call this function on a list of

Dear Christian and Henrik, thank you for spotting the problem and suggestions for a fix. We'll probably add a chunk.size argument to parLapplyLB and parLapply to follow OpenMP terminology, which has already been an inspiration for the present code (parLapply already implements static scheduling via internal function staticClusterApply, yet with a fixed chunk size; parLapplyLB already

Hi R-developers In the package Parallel, the function parLapply(cl, x, f) seems to allow transmission of only one parameter (x) to the function f. Hence in order to compute f(x, y) parallelly, I had to define f(x, y) as f(x) and tried to access y within the function, whereas y was defined outside of f(x). Script: library(parallel) f <- function(x) { z <- 2 * x + .GlobalEnv$y # Try to

Dear R users, I have some problems with the parLapply function from the "parallel" package: I use parLapply on a pretty big R object without changing the object within the called function. If I execute parLapply alone, everything works fine. It seems that the object resides only once in the memory. But if I use the same call within another function, the object seems to be multiplied to

Hello everybody, I've got a bit of a problem with parLapply that's left me scratching my head today. I've tried this in R 2.11 and the 23 bit Revolution R Enterprise and gotten the same result, OS in question is Windows XP, the package involved is the snow package. I've got a list of 20 rain/no rain (1/0) situations for these two stations i and j, all the items in this list look

I am slightly confused by the way the standard output is redirected in a R snow cluster environment. I am using parLapply from the snow package to execute a function on my MPI/LAM cluster. How can I redirect standard output (produced using "cat") from this function back to the terminal where I invoked it? I intend to transmit some status information in advance to the final result of the

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

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:39 AM, <FlorianSchwendinger at gmx.at> wrote: > Thank you for your answer! > I agree with you except for the 3 (Error) example and > I realize now I should have started with that in the explanation. > > From my point of view > parLapply(cl = clu, X = 1:2, fun = fun, c = 1) > shouldn't give an error. > > This could be easily avoided by

Hi, The following function use to work, but now it doesn't giving the error "> CallSnow(, 100) Using snow package, asking for 2 nodes 2 slaves are spawned successfully. 0 failed. Error in checkForRemoteErrors(val) : 2 nodes produced errors; first error: no applicable method for 'lapply' applied to an object of class "list" ". Where this is the

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]:

Dear R-users I was running into problems with my R code trying to run clh sampling (clhs package) in parallel mode (=on various data sets simultaneously). Here is the code (which I developed with some help:)): ****************************************** library("clhs") library("snow") a <- as.data.frame(replicate(1000, rnorm(20))) b <- as.data.frame(replicate(1000,

Hi, Here are the issues I found: Typos ----- (a) Found: It a parallel version of ?evalq?, "is" missing. (b) Found: 'parLapplyLB', 'parSapplyLB' are load-balancing versions, intended for use when applying ?FUN? to 'parLapplyLB' has no 'FUN' arg (more on this below). (c) Found: 'clusterApply' calls 'fun' on the first

The runtime of parallel::parLapply depends on variables unrelated to the parLapply call. However, this is not clearly documented. Therefore I would like to suggest expanding the relevant documentation to explain this behaviour. Consider this example: parallel_demo <- function(random_values_count) { some_data <- runif(random_values_count) dummy_function <- function(x) { x }

In pvec(list(1, 2), FUN, mc.cores=2) FUN sees integer() arguments whereas pvec(list(1, 2, 3), FUN, mc.cores=2) FUN sees list() arguments; the latter seems consistent with pvec's description. This came up in a complicated Bioconductor thread about generics and parallel evaluation https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/bioc-devel/2012-October/003745.html One relevant point is that a

In principle, I'd like to be able to do something like this: sge.parLapply(seq(10), function(x) parLapply(seq(x), function(x) x^2)) In practice, however, I have to resort to acrobatics like this: sge.options(sge.remove.files=FALSE) sge.options(sge.qsub.options='-cwd -V') sge.parLapply(seq(10), function(x) { sge.options(sge.save.global=TRUE)

Dear Tomas, Thanks for your commitment to fix this issue and also to add the chunk size as an argument. If you want our input, let us know ;) Best Regards On 02/26/2018 04:01 PM, Tomas Kalibera wrote: > Dear Christian and Henrik, > > thank you for spotting the problem and suggestions for a fix. We'll probably add a chunk.size argument to parLapplyLB and parLapply to follow OpenMP

Dear Henrik, The rationale is just that it is within these extremes and that it is really simple to calculate, without making any assumptions and knowing that it won't be perfect. The extremes A and B you are mentioning are special cases based on assumptions. Case A is based on the assumption that the function has a long runtime or varying runtime, then you are likely to get the best load