Re: Mathematica 7.0 slow on OS X

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg93834] Re: Mathematica 7.0 slow on OS X*From*: Antti Penttilä@smc.vnet.net*Date*: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:23:04 -0500 (EST)*Organization*: University of Helsinki*References*: <ggj7j1$j8a$1@smc.vnet.net>

Bill Rowe wrote: > On 11/25/08 at 7:18 AM, maderri2 at gmail.com (magma) wrote: > >> Does the Mathematica 7.0 own benchmarkreport take advantage of >> parallel computing? There should be an improvement at least there. >> Or not? > > Yes. That is looking at the code in Benchmark.m, there are > points where the code is set to use parallel processing when > possible. But this is also true for the code in Version 6. At > the momement, I don't have a setup that allows me to see what > effect this has. With version 6 the parallel computing happened inside some numerical matrix library functions (provided by Intel). In version 7 the parallel computing can, in addition to that, use several Mathematica kernels in a totally new way. With Mathematica benchmarking in my platform, however, the use of parallel subkernels with Math 7.0 seems to be very bad idea: Needs[ "Benchmarking`"] Kernels[] {} (* Only one kernel *) Benchmark[] ..."System" -> "Microsoft Windows (64-bit)", "BenchmarkName" -> "MathematicaMark7", "FullVersionNumber" -> "7.0.0", "Date" -> "November 26, 2008", "BenchmarkResult" -> 1.699, "TotalTime" -> 50.72... LaunchKernels[] KernelObject[1, "local"], KernelObject[2, "local"]} (* two parallel subkernels *) Benchmark[] ...{"MachineName" -> "2-node homogeneous cluster", "System" -> "Windows-x86-64", "BenchmarkName" -> "MathematicaMark7", "FullVersionNumber" -> "7.0.0", "Date" -> "November 26, 2008", "BenchmarkResult" -> 1.97, "TotalTime" -> 262.494} So, TotalTime went from 51 secs to 262 secs. Not very nice example of parallel advantages. Antti