Re: Hardware to run Octave

  Hi Ramon,

sorry, I don't have much advice to offer on a new device, I use old
hardware too, but don't have bulky tasks for Octave.

  About the parallel package. I never had luck either until today when I
saw actual examples here: http://wiki.octave.org/Parallel_package. Did you
try these examples? They kind of work for me (w/ Octave 6.1):

*>> function y = my_func(x), y = 42 * x; end      **# Try with
command-line-defined function*
*>> pararrayfun (4, @my_func, 1:8)*
*>> my_func(3)*
ans = 126
*>> pararrayfun (4, @(x) my_func(x), 1:8)          # Why no output?*

*                                                  # Try with file-defined
function*

*>> system('echo "function y = my_func2(x), y = 42 * x; end" > my_func2.m')*
ans = 0
*>> addpath('.')*
*>> pararrayfun (4, @(x) my_func2(x), 1:8)*         *# Still no output?*
*>> my_func2(4)*
ans = 168
*>> arrayfun (@(x) my_func2(x), 1:8)*               *# This works but is
not parallel*
ans =

    42    84   126   168   210   252   294   336

*>> pararrayfun (4, @(x) my_func2(x), 1:8)*
*>> z = pararrayfun (4, @(x) my_func2(x), 1:8)*          *# Aha! A return
value is needed?*
z =

    42    84   126   168   210   252   294   336

*>> z = pararrayfun (4, @(x) my_func(x), 1:8)      # That's not the end of
the story*
z =

  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1

*>> z = pararrayfun (4, @my_func, 1:8)             # CL-defined my_func()
is jinxed?*
z =

  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1  -1

*>> z = pararrayfun (4, @my_func2, 1:8)            # But file-defined
my_func2() seems OK*
z =

    42    84   126   168   210   252   294   336

                                                  *# Let's check
parallelism... LGTM*


*>> system('echo ''function y = my_delay_func(x), y = 42 * x;
printf("Starting %i\\n", x); pause(2); printf ("--Ending %i\\n", x); end''
> my_delay_func.m')*ans = 0

*>> system ('cat my_delay_func.m')*function y = my_delay_func(x), y = 42 *
x; printf("Starting %i\n", x); pause(2); printf ("--Ending %i\n", x); end
ans = 0

*>> my_delay_func(3)*Starting 3
--Ending 3
ans = 126

*>> z = pararrayfun (4, @my_delay_func, 1:8)*Starting 1
Starting 4
Starting 3
Starting 2
--Ending 1
Starting 5
--Ending 4
Starting 6
--Ending 3
--Ending 2
Starting 7
Starting 8
--Ending 5
--Ending 6
--Ending 7
--Ending 8
z =

    42    84   126   168   210   252   294   336


   Does this not work for you? If not, what output do you get w/ the above
command? What version of Octave are you using?

    HTH,

    Etienne



On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 7:47 AM Jose Ramom Flores das Seixas <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> As part of a research project, I wrote a program that takes about 17
> hours to produce the result, using only one of the processor cores. I
> tried to use the parallel package, but without success.
>
> Since the amount of time it takes to see the results is so long, the
> process of checking and correcting errors is very slow, not to mention
> that in my office the power goes out every now and then, wasting hours
> spent on calculations.
>
> My current computer will soon be 10 years old, and I was thinking of
> buying a new one. Its CPU is an Intel i52500K @ 3.30 GHz with 4 cores
> and 4 threads.
>
> One of the goals I have for the new PC is for it to run Octave nicely.
> Previously processors increased their power by, among other things,
> increasing the processor speed. But for a number of years now, the speed
> of new processors has not increased, and other methods have been used to
> improve them, such as using more cores.
>
> So I'd like to read your opinions on which hardware would be more
> suitable for running octave.
>
> Surely yours
>
> Ramom
>
>
>
>