From |uc@r @end|ng |rom |edor@project@org  Sat Apr 13 22:56:23 2019
From: |uc@r @end|ng |rom |edor@project@org (=?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Ucar?=)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 22:56:23 +0200
Subject: [Rd] SUGGESTION: Settings to disable forked processing in R,
 e.g. parallel::mclapply()
In-Reply-To: <2DC90380-893E-4525-8406-C685AC6D82FE@R-project.org>
References: <CAFDcVCSPzMYE9A9V==Gs2yYTuH+YDqWhT_q=WU4AU5JL0WzX=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALEXWq3RapiDCTOFUerzxfiawYBu3LFxpCQpYRwmL3MQBh-S4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPLMX9E6rcPNR0MMmaRPRQOBbhopiC43EBDEaHE56tWFGu5ZTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALEXWq2gkuDW48SmGT+YWjn-GmuEjW56bsXj28xTRO=E-tZ48Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPLMX9Fxe1T+npHdkXAzugApuopXN9F+5HgRSk0MyosRngopsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJXgQP1i0EGEmHj2UAqY-H3QnYfspsJ3BkhY8fGE6oOKCb9vnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALEXWq2NzM7tLJ4kNTF=D=wKdDFe2xu2nw6mXYbbFJgp9Q1q2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DC90380-893E-4525-8406-C685AC6D82FE@R-project.org>
Message-ID: <CALEXWq0wHU5fs2CkswbfmneJ4QSMkZRtn6m5KOu3aWcbMertsQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 18:41, Simon Urbanek <simon.urbanek at r-project.org> 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.

-- 
I?aki ?car



[Rd] SUGGESTION: Settings to disable forked processing in R, e.g. parallel::mclapply()
=?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Ucar?=