[Beowulf] no shared state, shared state with explicit locking, shared state without explicit locks
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Mark Hahn hahn at mcmaster.caThu Oct 4 13:02:39 PDT 2007
- Previous message: [Beowulf] no shared state, shared state with explicit locking, shared state without explicit locks
- Next message: [Beowulf] 32 nodes cluster price
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
this question is referring to a thread here: http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/03/0021253&from=rss > but I'll bet that those three classifications (no shared state, shared > state with explicit locking, shared state without explicit locks) I think there's one big distinction: shared or not shared. I figured the author was talking about functional/dataflow languages which don't have shared state (including MPI, in a sense) versus languages which assume shared memory such as OpenMP. within the shared-memory approach, explicit locking is pretty clear. I presume "without explicit locks" just means crude systems like Java's monitored data types. IMO, the penitude of parallel packages mainly shows that we don't have good answers yet...
- Previous message: [Beowulf] no shared state, shared state with explicit locking, shared state without explicit locks
- Next message: [Beowulf] 32 nodes cluster price
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
