Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 09:06:10 02/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 26, 2004 at 11:18:07, Charles Roberson wrote: > > 30 years ago, I spent time working for tobacco farmers. I dislike smoking of >any kind but it was the only job in town. There were several things that we did >that easily applies to parallel algorithms. These methods were all in how to >help out the slower people and getting the field primed faster. > > All rows were not of uniform length -- the fields had curved boundaries. > So, here were some of the things we tried. > 1) When the fastest person finishes, he helps the next person closest to > finishing. Then, those two help the next person closest to finishing and > so on .... > > Variation: When the #2 person is finished the two leaders help split > their help across persons 3 and 4. Then the 4 split their > help across persons 5,6,7,8. > > Once we had two or more helping the others "out". The > fastest person helps the person farthest behind and so on. > > 2) When the first person finishes, he helps "out" the person the most > behind. Then second person out helps the new person the most behind. > If the person originaly farthest behind is not the second "out" due to > the help. The two split efforts to help the most behind. > > > Now, which was the most effective and which did the farmers like the most? > #1 was the most effective and most liked by the farmer. > > Why? > 1) it made it very clear who were the slackers. (an issue with comps??) > 2) the slackers were often taught better techniques and thus sometimes. > if they still didn't improve they weren't rehired. > 3) it was better for morale -- the good received some amount of help but > so did the bad. Also, the best performers did not do too much extra > work. > > Now, how does this apply to comps. Are there slackers? Yes, what about > distributed systems with different speed processors. > > The first algorithm reminds me of Young Brothers Wait -- the last nodes > helped are the ones move ordering designates as least best. > > The second algorithm reminds me of Bob's paper on DTS or any other work > stealing approach. I don't think DTS really suggested a split strategy (other than split at ALL nodes if possible). Bob's paper is more, "how can we design a parallel structure so that we can split anywhere in the tree". Once you have a working DTS implementation, you can split however you want . . . anthony
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.