Print

Print


Hi Sean,

Hmm... maybe it would be even easier to just let slaves connect to  
the master whenever they want, and accept M jobs. That is, the master  
doesn't assign jobs to slaves a priori, and would therefore only have  
to keep track of slaves with outstanding jobs. This way, slaves that  
return quickly will automatically get assigned more jobs?

--Rob


On Oct 26, 2006, at 2:36 PM, Sean Luke wrote:

>
> If the documentation says something along those lines, we need to  
> change it.  Actually the way the mechanism works is somewhat  
> different.
>
> When a slave comes online, it joins a pool of available slaves.   
> When the system must evaluate N individuals, say, a population's  
> worth, it goes through the following loop:
>
> 	while there are still individuals to be processed
> 		pick an available slave arbitrarily
> 		give that slave some (small number) M individuals
>
> In the background, it waits for slaves to come back finished, marks  
> those individuals as finished, and the slave enters the available  
> list again.  If a slave goes down while processing, its unprocessed  
> individuals are put back in the need-to-be-processed list again.
>
> It's true ECJ will assign jobs to every one of your processors if  
> there are many more individuals than processors.  But if you have a  
> fast processor on one machine and a slow one on another, the fast  
> processor will come available more often and balance the load.
>
> The advantage of this mechanism over your proposal (which is good  
> btw) is that slow processing isn't just a function of the CPU  
> speed.  It's more often than not a function of the size and  
> complexity of the individual.  And that's not something you can  
> necessarily figure out a priori beforehand.
>
> Still there might be some improvements, mostly in the  
> identification of which slave to pick.  If a slave has a record of  
> coming back rapidly, maybe it ought to go to the front of the line  
> per se.
>
> Sean
>