- Beating Moore's Law: Scaling Performance for Another Half-Century - 1 Update
- My final thoughts about scalability.. - 1 Update
- Read again, i correct a last typo - 2 Updates
- More philosophy about scalability.. - 1 Update
- Here is my new invention.. - 1 Update
- More explanation about scalability.. - 1 Update
- I have just invented other more powerful scalable algorithms - 1 Update
- About Multi-channel memory architecture and my Parallel Sort Library.. - 1 Update
- My new and final logical proof about scalability.. - 1 Update
- I think we have to be more smart about scalability.. - 1 Update
| Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com>: Mar 29 09:45AM -0700 Hello.. Read this: As you know i am a white arab that is a more serious computer programmer who has specialized in parallel programming and synchronization algorithms, and i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, so i invite you to read the following to know more: Beating Moore's Law: Scaling Performance for Another Half-Century Read more here: https://www.infoworld.com/article/3287025/beating-moore-s-law-scaling-performance-for-another-half-century.html Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com>: Mar 28 02:37PM -0700 Hello... Read this: My final thoughts about scalability.. I think that i am like proving the following: An understanding of a concept is a running concept, because to be able to be an understanding of a concept there must be a running concept, and the running concept permits us to measure the running concept, so the running concept of democracy permits us to say that "democracy" is good or not, that's the same for software scalability, because the software scalability is also the running concept of software scalability that permits us to measure the running concept of scalability, so we can finally say that software scalability is also the running software scalability , and this running concept of software scalability is the new "speed" of the software relatively to the old speed, and the old speed can be fixed here or there in the reference of time. Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand more: I think i have to do more philosophy about scalability.. I said the following: "The actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X" In political philosophy we have what we call the "concept" of democracy, but we have to know that the concept of democracy that is understood by our mind and consciousness is a "running" concept of democracy, i mean a running concept of democracy in our mind. That's the same for software scalability, software scalability is not just the concept, software scalability is also the running concept of software scalability, and this running concept of software scalability is the new "speed" of the software relatively to the old speed, and the old speed can be fixed here or there in the reference of time, this is why when i say that: "The actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X" It also means the "running" concept of scalability. So read my below previous writing to understand more: More explanation about scalability.. As you have noticed i said below the following: "The actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X" You have to distinguish between the scalability that is the combination of scalability of hardware and software, and the scalability that is only software or only hardware. So you have to know that i am speaking below about the "total" scalability of both the hardware(from one channel memory to 8 channels memory) and software on actual Intel and AMD processors, but 3D stacking of memory will give much more scalability. Read again: About Multi-channel memory architecture and my Parallel Sort Library.. On actual Intel and AMD processors data is moved from and to main memory only in 64 bytes chunks, so in a 8 channels of a Multi-channel memory architecture in a ganged mode, i think that the memory speed of my Parallel Sort library in the mergesort mode will go to 8X speed, and the actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X. So i will advice you to use the ganged mode of the Multi-channel memory architecture because it works great. My Parallel Sort Library was updated to version 3.64 I have enhanced it more, and i think it is stable and fast and it scales more. You can download it from: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/parallel-sort-library Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com>: Mar 28 11:32AM -0700 Hello... Read again, i correct a last typo: More explanation about scalability.. As you have noticed i said below the following: "The scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X" You have to distinguish between the scalability that is the combination of scalability of hardware and software, and the scalability that is only software or only hardware. So you have to know that i am speaking below about the "total" scalability of both the hardware(from one channel memory to 8 channels memory) and software on actual Intel and AMD processors, but 3D stacking of memory will give much more scalability. Read again: About Multi-channel memory architecture and my Parallel Sort Library.. On actual Intel and AMD processors data is moved from and to main memory only in 64 bytes chunks, so in a 8 channels of a Multi-channel memory architecture in a ganged mode, i think that the memory speed of my Parallel Sort library in the mergesort mode will go to 8X speed, and the actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X. So i will advice you to use the ganged mode of the Multi-channel memory architecture because it works great. My Parallel Sort Library was updated to version 3.64 I have enhanced it more, and i think it is stable and fast and it scales more. You can download it from: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/parallel-sort-library Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com>: Mar 29 08:36AM -0700 Hello.. Read again, i correct a last typo Here is my new invention.. I have just invented a new scalable lock that is "better" than my following scalable lock: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-mlock I think i will sell my new scalable lock to Embarcadero software company or such software companies. My new scalable lock is a node based Lock that is scalable, FIFO fair and starvation-free. - Discovered by Amine Moulay Ramdane - This lock is scalable - It has the same space requirement as the scalable MCS lock - Doesn't require a local "queue node" to be passed in as a parameter as is doing the MCS and CLH locks. - Spins only on local locations on a cache-coherent machine - And it's fast. So you have to know that my new scalable lock doesn't require a local "queue node" to be passed in as a parameter as is doing the MCS and CLH locks, my scalable MLock doesn't require any parameter to be passed, just call the Enter() and Leave() methods and that's all. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com>: Mar 29 06:15AM -0700 Hello.. More philosophy about scalability.. As i said: "To be "convinced" of my writing, we can notice that from the running hardware we can extract the ideas of the software(or the software), so from empiricism we can get rationalism." And i wrote: "But i think that the right definition is also to include the running software that is physical as the definition of a software." I mean that the "set" that is called the "existence" of a software can be composed of a the ideas of the software extracted from the running hardware, so empiricism gives rationalism, so that when you see a hardware running , you can say that this hardware that is running engender that ideas of the software that is called the running software, and the engendered ideas of the software are running in the time scale, so the running software has a scalability that can be the new "speed" of the running software relatively to the old speed, and the old speed can be fixed here or there in the reference of time. Read the rest of my previous thoughts so to understand: More explanation about scalability.. I said yesterday the following: "What do you think is an idea in philosophy ? An idea in philosophy can be immaterial or material. So if an idea is immaterial , we will not allow the definition of an idea as a running idea that is physical, but if it is material we will allow the definition of an idea as a running idea that is physical, this is the basis of logic. So more importantly we can define a software as only ideas that we think with our logical reasoning and minds, so with this we will exclude in the definition the software as a running software that is physical, but we can also define a software as a running ideas that are material so that we can define a software as a running software that is material and also with its ideas that are immaterial. But i think that the right definition is also to include the running software that is physical as the definition of a software." To be "convinced" of my above writing, we can notice that from the running hardware we can extract the ideas of the software(or the software), so from empiricism we can get rationalism. Read the rest of my previous thoughts: I think we have to be more smart about scalability.. I think we have to understand philosophy correctly: What do you think is an idea in philosophy ? An idea in philosophy can be immaterial or material. So if an idea is immaterial , we will not allow the definition of an idea as a running idea that is physical, but if it is material we will allow the definition of an idea as a running idea that is physical, this is the basis of logic. So more importantly we can define a software as only ideas that we think with our logical reasoning and minds, so with this we will exclude in the definition the software as a running software that is physical, but we can also define a software as a running ideas that are material so that we can define a software as a running software that is material and also with its ideas that are immaterial. But i think that the right definition is also to include the running software that is physical as the definition of a software and this is why i wrote the following in my previous writing about scalability: My new and final logical proof about scalability.. I have proved below that: "An understanding of a concept is a running concept" But i have to be more smart, so follow me: What do you think is an idea ? Since: "An understanding of a concept is a running concept" So an idea too is a running idea. But what is a software ? A software is composed of a running software and text of a oftware. But since a software is a running software too, so the running software is the hardware, so software scalability is the concept and also the running software scalability that is the hardware, so we can infer logically that even if the program is single threaded and it runs on a more powerful hardware, the running software scalability will be the new more powerful hardware that compose the running software scalability, thus my logical proof is complete. Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand more: More logical proof about scalability: I will now prove the following to be able for you to see the big picture, i said the following: "An understanding of a concept is a running concept" My logical proof of it is the following: You have to read first my previous writing below that say the following: "In political philosophy we have what we call the "concept" of democracy,but we have to know that the concept of democracy that is understood by our mind and consciousness is a "running" concept of democracy, i mean a running concept of democracy in our mind." So as you are noticing consciousness and understanding of the concept of democracy is a running concept of democracy, so this part is logical from the above, so we can logically infer that: "An understanding of a concept is a running concept", because the understanding of a concept comes from a running concept of our mind and consciousness and it comes from the running concept of the outside reality, so it is in both a running concept, hence logically we can say: "An understanding of a concept is a running concept". Read my previous following thoughts to understand: My final thoughts about scalability.. I think that i am like proving the following: An understanding of a concept is a running concept, because to be able to be an understanding of a concept there must be a running concept, and the running concept permits us to measure the running concept, so the running concept of democracy permits us to say that "democracy" is good or not, that's the same for software scalability, because the software scalability is also the running concept of software scalability that permits us to measure the running concept of scalability, so we can finally say that software scalability is also the running software scalability , and this running concept of software scalability is the new "speed" of the software relatively to the old speed, and the old speed can be fixed here or there in the reference of time. Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand more: I think i have to do more philosophy about scalability.. I said the following: "The actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X" In political philosophy we have what we call the "concept" of democracy, but we have to know that the concept of democracy that is understood by our mind and consciousness is a "running" concept of democracy, i mean a running concept of democracy in our mind. That's the same for software scalability, software scalability is not just the concept, software scalability is also the running concept of software scalability, and this running concept of software scalability is the new "speed" of the software relatively to the old speed, and the old speed can be fixed here or there in the reference of time, this is why when i say that: "The actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X" It also means the "running" concept of scalability. So read my below previous writing to understand more: More explanation about scalability.. As you have noticed i said below the following: "The actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X" You have to distinguish between the scalability that is the combination of scalability of hardware and software, and the scalability that is only software or only hardware. So you have to know that i am speaking below about the "total" scalability of both the hardware(from one channel memory to 8 channels memory) and software on actual Intel and AMD processors, but 3D stacking of memory will give much more scalability. Read again: About Multi-channel memory architecture and my Parallel Sort Library.. On actual Intel and AMD processors data is moved from and to main memory only in 64 bytes chunks, so in a 8 channels of a Multi-channel memory architecture in a ganged mode, i think that the memory speed of my Parallel Sort library in the mergesort mode will go to 8X speed, and the actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X. So i will advice you to use the ganged mode of the Multi-channel memory architecture because it works great. My Parallel Sort Library was updated to version 3.64 I have enhanced it more, and i think it is stable and fast and it scales more. You can download it from: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/parallel-sort-library Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com>: Mar 29 08:30AM -0700 Hello.. Here is my new invention.. I have just invented a new scalable lock that is "better" than my following scalable lock: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-mlock I think i will sell my new scalable lock to Embarcadero sofware company or such software companies. My new scalable lock is a node based Lock that is scalable, FIFO fair and starvation-free. - Discovered by Amine Moulay Ramdane - This lock is scalable - It has the same space requirement as the scalable MCS lock - Doesn't require a local "queue node" to be passed in as a parameter as is doing the MCS and CLH locks. - Spins only on local locations on a cache-coherent machine - And it's fast. So you have to know that my new scalable lock doesn't require a local "queue node" to be passed in as a parameter as is doing the MCS and CLH locks, my scalable MLock doesn't require any parameter to be passed, just call the Enter() and Leave() methods and that's all. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com>: Mar 29 04:35AM -0700 Hello... More explanation about scalability.. I said yesterday the following: "What do you think is an idea in philosophy ? An idea in philosophy can be immaterial or material. So if an idea is immaterial , we will not allow the definition of an idea as a running idea that is physical, but if it is material we will allow the definition of an idea as a running idea that is physical, this is the basis of logic. So more importantly we can define a software as only ideas that we think with our logical reasoning and minds, so with this we will exclude in the definition the software as a running software that is physical, but we can also define a software as a running ideas that are material so that we can define a software as a running software that is material and also with its ideas that are immaterial. But i think that the right definition is also to include the running software that is physical as the definition of a software." To be "convinced" of my above writing, we can notice that from the running hardware we can extract the ideas of the software(or the software), so from empiricism we can get rationalism. Read the rest of my previous thoughts: I think we have to be more smart about scalability.. I think we have to understand philosophy correctly: What do you think is an idea in philosophy ? An idea in philosophy can be immaterial or material. So if an idea is immaterial , we will not allow the definition of an idea as a running idea that is physical, but if it is material we will allow the definition of an idea as a running idea that is physical, this is the basis of logic. So more importantly we can define a software as only ideas that we think with our logical reasoning and minds, so with this we will exclude in the definition the software as a running software that is physical, but we can also define a software as a running ideas that are material so that we can define a software as a running software that is material and also with its ideas that are immaterial. But i think that the right definition is also to include the running software that is physical as the definition of a software and this is why i wrote the following in my previous writing about scalability: My new and final logical proof about scalability.. I have proved below that: "An understanding of a concept is a running concept" But i have to be more smart, so follow me: What do you think is an idea ? Since: "An understanding of a concept is a running concept" So an idea too is a running idea. But what is a software ? A software is composed of a running software and text of a oftware. But since a software is a running software too, so the running software is the hardware, so software scalability is the concept and also the running software scalability that is the hardware, so we can infer logically that even if the program is single threaded and it runs on a more powerful hardware, the running software scalability will be the new more powerful hardware that compose the running software scalability, thus my logical proof is complete. Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand more: More logical proof about scalability: I will now prove the following to be able for you to see the big picture, i said the following: "An understanding of a concept is a running concept" My logical proof of it is the following: You have to read first my previous writing below that say the following: "In political philosophy we have what we call the "concept" of democracy,but we have to know that the concept of democracy that is understood by our mind and consciousness is a "running" concept of democracy, i mean a running concept of democracy in our mind." So as you are noticing consciousness and understanding of the concept of democracy is a running concept of democracy, so this part is logical from the above, so we can logically infer that: "An understanding of a concept is a running concept", because the understanding of a concept comes from a running concept of our mind and consciousness and it comes from the running concept of the outside reality, so it is in both a running concept, hence logically we can say: "An understanding of a concept is a running concept". Read my previous following thoughts to understand: My final thoughts about scalability.. I think that i am like proving the following: An understanding of a concept is a running concept, because to be able to be an understanding of a concept there must be a running concept, and the running concept permits us to measure the running concept, so the running concept of democracy permits us to say that "democracy" is good or not, that's the same for software scalability, because the software scalability is also the running concept of software scalability that permits us to measure the running concept of scalability, so we can finally say that software scalability is also the running software scalability , and this running concept of software scalability is the new "speed" of the software relatively to the old speed, and the old speed can be fixed here or there in the reference of time. Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand more: I think i have to do more philosophy about scalability.. I said the following: "The actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X" In political philosophy we have what we call the "concept" of democracy, but we have to know that the concept of democracy that is understood by our mind and consciousness is a "running" concept of democracy, i mean a running concept of democracy in our mind. That's the same for software scalability, software scalability is not just the concept, software scalability is also the running concept of software scalability, and this running concept of software scalability is the new "speed" of the software relatively to the old speed, and the old speed can be fixed here or there in the reference of time, this is why when i say that: "The actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X" It also means the "running" concept of scalability. So read my below previous writing to understand more: More explanation about scalability.. As you have noticed i said below the following: "The actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X" You have to distinguish between the scalability that is the combination of scalability of hardware and software, and the scalability that is only software or only hardware. So you have to know that i am speaking below about the "total" scalability of both the hardware(from one channel memory to 8 channels memory) and software on actual Intel and AMD processors, but 3D stacking of memory will give much more scalability. Read again: About Multi-channel memory architecture and my Parallel Sort Library.. On actual Intel and AMD processors data is moved from and to main memory only in 64 bytes chunks, so in a 8 channels of a Multi-channel memory architecture in a ganged mode, i think that the memory speed of my Parallel Sort library in the mergesort mode will go to 8X speed, and the actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X. So i will advice you to use the ganged mode of the Multi-channel memory architecture because it works great. My Parallel Sort Library was updated to version 3.64 I have enhanced it more, and i think it is stable and fast and it scales more. You can download it from: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/parallel-sort-library Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com>: Mar 29 08:52AM -0700 Hello... I have just invented other more powerful scalable algorithms, read below(they are now both bounded and unbounded), so i think i have just "revolutionized" computing. I am like a PhD researcher and i am competing against high-tech compagnies and against the best PhD researchers, because i am an inventor of many scalable algorithms and there implementations, read the following to notice it: As you have noticed i am a white arab that is a gentleman type of person, I am also a more serious computer programmer that is an "inventor" of many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and i am able to dance a beautiful dance with high-tech companies such Microsoft and Google and Oracle and Embarcadero and such big high-tech software compagnies, because i am like a PhD researcher that is inventing scalable algorithms, and i also know how to "dance" a "beautiful" dance on the following USA beautiful song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s4slliAtQU&list=RD2s4slliAtQU&start_radio=1 This why i wrote the following poem to make you understand more my way: == Is a beautiful dance a romance ? Or is a beautiful dance a show of common sense ? A beautiful dance is not only an instinct Since beautifulness is feeling the essence Since beautifulness is a beautiful cadence Since beautifulness is also intelligence Since beautifulness is a beautiful dance of patience and tolerance Since beautifulness is a beautiful dance of transcendence So you have to know how to dance the beautiful dance To be able to "advance" by evidence. == So what is my new beautiful dance that i am dancing ? I have just invented the following algorithms that i will sell to high-tech big software compagnies: And as i said Scalable method for producer and consumer elimination is already patented, here it is: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7779165 But i have already "invented" the following scalable algorithms and there implementations that don't use elimination, here they are: - Fully Scalable FIFO queue both unbounded and bounded - Fully scalable LIFO stack both bounded and unbounded. - Fully scalable LIFO priority stack both bounded and unbounded - Fully scalable FIFO priority queue both bounded and unbounded and with limited number of priorities(up to 25 or something like that). But as you have noticed the following invention is patented: Scalable method for producer and consumer elimination is already patented, here it is: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7779165 This invention of the elimination method has given the following invention that uses "elimination" that as i said is patented: Scalable Concurrent Priority Queue Algorithms http://people.csail.mit.edu/shanir/publications/SZ-priority.pdf And elimination method above that is "patented" has given a scalable lockfree LIFO stack and a scalable FIFO queue that use elimination, but the weakness of those algorithms that use elimination is that: if we have, say, bursts of push calls followed by bursts of pop calls, there will again be no elimination and therefore no parallelism. This is why i have "solved" this weakness or problem by revolutionizing computing by inventing my above scalable algorithms that are fully scalable, and my scalable algorithms above have permit me to invent a fully scalable Threadpool and fully scalable Threadpool with priorities, this is why my above scalable algorithms will revolutionize computing. So as you are noticing i am an inventor of many scalable algorithms. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com>: Mar 28 11:02AM -0700 Hello.. About Multi-channel memory architecture and my Parallel Sort Library.. On actual Intel and AMD processors data is moved from and to main memory only in 64 bytes chunks, so in a 8 channels of a Multi-channel memory architecture in a ganged mode, i think that the memory speed of my Parallel Sort library in the mergesort mode will go to 8X speed, and the scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X. So i will advice you to use the ganged mode of the Multi-channel memory architecture because it works great. My Parallel Sort Library was updated to version 3.64 I have enhanced it more, and i think it is stable and fast and it scales more. You can download it from: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/parallel-sort-library Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com>: Mar 28 04:10PM -0700 Hello... Read this: My new and final logical proof about scalability.. I have proved below that: "An understanding of a concept is a running concept" But i have to be more smart, so follow me: What do you think is an idea ? Since: "An understanding of a concept is a running concept" So an idea too is a running idea. But what is a software ? A software is composed of a running software and text of a oftware. But since a software is a running software too, so the running software is the hardware, so software scalability is the concept and also the running software scalability that is the hardware, so we can infer logically that even if the program is single threaded and it runs on a more powerful hardware, the running software scalability will be the new more powerful hardware that compose the running software scalability, thus my logical proof is complete. Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand more: More logical proof about scalability: I will now prove the following to be able for you to see the big picture, i said the following: "An understanding of a concept is a running concept" My logical proof of it is the following: You have to read first my previous writing below that say the following: "In political philosophy we have what we call the "concept" of democracy,but we have to know that the concept of democracy that is understood by our mind and consciousness is a "running" concept of democracy, i mean a running concept of democracy in our mind." So as you are noticing consciousness and understanding of the concept of democracy is a running concept of democracy, so this part is logical from the above, so we can logically infer that: "An understanding of a concept is a running concept", because the understanding of a concept comes from a running concept of our mind and consciousness and it comes from the running concept of the outside reality, so it is in both a running concept, hence logically we can say: "An understanding of a concept is a running concept". Read my previous following thoughts to understand: My final thoughts about scalability.. I think that i am like proving the following: An understanding of a concept is a running concept, because to be able to be an understanding of a concept there must be a running concept, and the running concept permits us to measure the running concept, so the running concept of democracy permits us to say that "democracy" is good or not, that's the same for software scalability, because the software scalability is also the running concept of software scalability that permits us to measure the running concept of scalability, so we can finally say that software scalability is also the running software scalability , and this running concept of software scalability is the new "speed" of the software relatively to the old speed, and the old speed can be fixed here or there in the reference of time. Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand more: I think i have to do more philosophy about scalability.. I said the following: "The actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X" In political philosophy we have what we call the "concept" of democracy, but we have to know that the concept of democracy that is understood by our mind and consciousness is a "running" concept of democracy, i mean a running concept of democracy in our mind. That's the same for software scalability, software scalability is not just the concept, software scalability is also the running concept of software scalability, and this running concept of software scalability is the new "speed" of the software relatively to the old speed, and the old speed can be fixed here or there in the reference of time, this is why when i say that: "The actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X" It also means the "running" concept of scalability. So read my below previous writing to understand more: More explanation about scalability.. As you have noticed i said below the following: "The actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X" You have to distinguish between the scalability that is the combination of scalability of hardware and software, and the scalability that is only software or only hardware. So you have to know that i am speaking below about the "total" scalability of both the hardware(from one channel memory to 8 channels memory) and software on actual Intel and AMD processors, but 3D stacking of memory will give much more scalability. Read again: About Multi-channel memory architecture and my Parallel Sort Library.. On actual Intel and AMD processors data is moved from and to main memory only in 64 bytes chunks, so in a 8 channels of a Multi-channel memory architecture in a ganged mode, i think that the memory speed of my Parallel Sort library in the mergesort mode will go to 8X speed, and the actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X. So i will advice you to use the ganged mode of the Multi-channel memory architecture because it works great. My Parallel Sort Library was updated to version 3.64 I have enhanced it more, and i think it is stable and fast and it scales more. You can download it from: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/parallel-sort-library Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com>: Mar 28 05:09PM -0700 Hello... Read this: I think we have to be more smart about scalability.. I think we have to understand philosophy correctly: What do you think is an idea in philosophy ? An idea in philosophy can be immaterial or material. So if an idea is immaterial , we will not allow the definition of an idea as a running idea that is physical, but if it is material we will allow the definition of an idea as a running idea that is physical, this is the basis of logic. So more importantly we can define a software as only ideas that we think with our logical reasoning and minds, so with this we will exclude in the definition the software as a running software that is physical, but we can also define a software as a running ideas that are material so that we can define a software as a running software that is material and also with its ideas that are immaterial. But i think that the the right definition is also to include the running software that is physical as the definition of a software and this is why i wrote the following in my previous writing about scalability: My new and final logical proof about scalability.. I have proved below that: "An understanding of a concept is a running concept" But i have to be more smart, so follow me: What do you think is an idea ? Since: "An understanding of a concept is a running concept" So an idea too is a running idea. But what is a software ? A software is composed of a running software and text of a oftware. But since a software is a running software too, so the running software is the hardware, so software scalability is the concept and also the running software scalability that is the hardware, so we can infer logically that even if the program is single threaded and it runs on a more powerful hardware, the running software scalability will be the new more powerful hardware that compose the running software scalability, thus my logical proof is complete. Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand more: More logical proof about scalability: I will now prove the following to be able for you to see the big picture, i said the following: "An understanding of a concept is a running concept" My logical proof of it is the following: You have to read first my previous writing below that say the following: "In political philosophy we have what we call the "concept" of democracy,but we have to know that the concept of democracy that is understood by our mind and consciousness is a "running" concept of democracy, i mean a running concept of democracy in our mind." So as you are noticing consciousness and understanding of the concept of democracy is a running concept of democracy, so this part is logical from the above, so we can logically infer that: "An understanding of a concept is a running concept", because the understanding of a concept comes from a running concept of our mind and consciousness and it comes from the running concept of the outside reality, so it is in both a running concept, hence logically we can say: "An understanding of a concept is a running concept". Read my previous following thoughts to understand: My final thoughts about scalability.. I think that i am like proving the following: An understanding of a concept is a running concept, because to be able to be an understanding of a concept there must be a running concept, and the running concept permits us to measure the running concept, so the running concept of democracy permits us to say that "democracy" is good or not, that's the same for software scalability, because the software scalability is also the running concept of software scalability that permits us to measure the running concept of scalability, so we can finally say that software scalability is also the running software scalability , and this running concept of software scalability is the new "speed" of the software relatively to the old speed, and the old speed can be fixed here or there in the reference of time. Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand more: I think i have to do more philosophy about scalability.. I said the following: "The actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X" In political philosophy we have what we call the "concept" of democracy, but we have to know that the concept of democracy that is understood by our mind and consciousness is a "running" concept of democracy, i mean a running concept of democracy in our mind. That's the same for software scalability, software scalability is not just the concept, software scalability is also the running concept of software scalability, and this running concept of software scalability is the new "speed" of the software relatively to the old speed, and the old speed can be fixed here or there in the reference of time, this is why when i say that: "The actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X" It also means the "running" concept of scalability. So read my below previous writing to understand more: More explanation about scalability.. As you have noticed i said below the following: "The actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X" You have to distinguish between the scalability that is the combination of scalability of hardware and software, and the scalability that is only software or only hardware. So you have to know that i am speaking below about the "total" scalability of both the hardware(from one channel memory to 8 channels memory) and software on actual Intel and AMD processors, but 3D stacking of memory will give much more scalability. Read again: About Multi-channel memory architecture and my Parallel Sort Library.. On actual Intel and AMD processors data is moved from and to main memory only in 64 bytes chunks, so in a 8 channels of a Multi-channel memory architecture in a ganged mode, i think that the memory speed of my Parallel Sort library in the mergesort mode will go to 8X speed, and the actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort mode will go to around 12X. So i will advice you to use the ganged mode of the Multi-channel memory architecture because it works great. My Parallel Sort Library was updated to version 3.64 I have enhanced it more, and i think it is stable and fast and it scales more. You can download it from: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/parallel-sort-library Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.programming.threads+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment