> On Apr 13, 2019, at 16:56, Iñaki Ucar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 18:41, Simon Urbanek <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Sure, but that a completely bogus argument because in that case it would
>> fail even more spectacularly with any other method like PSOCK because you
>> would *have to* allocate n times as much memory so unlike mclapply it is
>> guaranteed to fail. With mclapply it is simply much more efficient as it
>> will share memory as long as possible. It is rather obvious that any new
>> objects you create can no longer be shared as they now exist separately in
>> each process.
>
> The point was that PSOCK fails and succeeds *consistently*,
> independently of what you do with the input in the function provided.
> I think that's a good property.
>
So does parallel. It is consistent. If you do things that use too much memory
you will consistently fail. That's a pretty universal rule, there is nothing
probabilistic about it. It makes no difference if it's PSOCK, multicore, or
anything else.
______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
