Dear Henrik (and everyone else):
Here's a patch implementing support for immediateConditions in
'parallel' socket clusters. What do you think?
I've tried to make the feature backwards-compatible in the sense that
an older R starting a newer cluster worker will not pass the flag
enabling condition
Henrik,
Thank you for taking the time to read and reply to my message!
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:19:38 -0700
Henrik Bengtsson wrote:
> * Target a solution that works the same regardless whether we run in
> parallel or not, i.e. the code/API should look the same regardless of
> using, say, parallel
Thanks Ivan and Henrik for considering this work. It would be a valuable
contribution.
Kindly,
*Stephen Dawson, DSL*
/Executive Strategy Consultant/
Business & Technology
+1 (865) 804-3454
http://www.shdawson.com
On 3/25/24 13:19, Henrik Bengtsson wrote:
Hello,
thanks for bringing this topic
Hello,
thanks for bringing this topic up, and it would be excellent if we
could come of with a generic solution for this in base R. It is one
of the top frequently asked questions and requested features in
parallel processing, but also in sequential processing. We have also
seen lots of variants
Hello R-devel,
A function to be run inside lapply() or one of its friends is trivial
to augment with side effects to show a progress bar. When the code is
intended to be run on a 'parallel' cluster, it generally cannot rely on
its own side effects to report progress.
I've found three approaches t
