[HN Gopher] Faster computing results without fear of errors
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Faster computing results without fear of errors
        
       Author : rntn
       Score  : 25 points
       Date   : 2022-06-07 15:29 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (news.mit.edu)
 (TXT) w3m dump (news.mit.edu)
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | dangerface wrote:
       | Parallelization makes a program get to its result faster sure but
       | thats not the same as faster computing. It seems like it takes
       | the same amount of computing time just done in parallel, I think
       | thats misleading.
       | 
       | > No matter the performance benefits -- if you promise to make
       | something run in a second instead of a year -- if there is any
       | chance of returning incorrect results, no one is going to use
       | your method
       | 
       | This isn't particularly true depending on your definition of
       | incorrect, often it doesn't need to be correct just close enough.
       | As an example the fast inverse square root function in quake give
       | results that are incorrect but close enough and is 10x faster
       | than getting the correct result.
        
         | phoe-krk wrote:
         | _> Parallelization makes a program get to its result faster
         | sure but thats not the same as faster computing._
         | 
         | True. A better description would be something like "an auto-
         | parallelizing compiler/runtime for Unix shell scripts" which
         | accepts standard shell scripts and performs automatic
         | parallelization wherever it can.
        
           | [deleted]
        
         | kazinator wrote:
         | If something is parallelized that must not be, the result
         | typically won't be something "close enough", which is the point
         | in the article. Not correctness as in numerical accuracy, where
         | we can establish tolerances.
         | 
         | However, the irony here is that the specific target audience
         | for this tool actually _will_ cheerfully accept incorrect
         | parallelization for a speedup. Evidence for this is the use of
         | parallel make, which does nothing to assure correctness;
         | correctness is up to the Makefile rules expressing the correct,
         | complete dependency graph.
         | 
         | It's a fairly common practice to unleash parallel make on
         | Makefiles that were written by other people (e.g. authors of
         | free software), where those authors provided not a shred of
         | documented assurance that their Makefiles were designed and
         | tested for parallel use.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | StefanKarpinski wrote:
       | This press release is so vague and hypey as to be unintelligible.
       | The paper itself (linked from the article) is much clearer:
       | "Practically Correct, Just-in-Time Shell Script Parallelization"
       | https://nikos.vasilak.is/p/pash:osdi:2022.pdf.
        
         | Zababa wrote:
         | Github organization: https://github.com/binpash
         | 
         | Github project: https://github.com/binpash/pash
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-06-07 23:02 UTC)