> On Apr 13, 2019, at 16:56, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
>
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 18:41, Simon Urbanek
> 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
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 18:41, Simon Urbanek 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
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 wil
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 03:51, Kevin Ushey wrote:
>
> I think it's worth saying that mclapply() works as documented
Mostly, yes. But it says nothing about fork's copy-on-write and memory
overcommitment, and that this means that it may work nicely or fail
spectacularly depending on whether, e.g., y
