Re: Pi program and hard disk usage

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:46:09 +0200, Michal Nazarewicz
<mina86@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:47:01 -0400, CBFalconer
<cbfalconer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

mike3 wrote:

I used the profiler that comes with Intel's C compilers, and it
seems the pi program, for large runs, is spending the great deal
^^^^^^^^^^ what is that?
of time accessing or waiting for the hard drive. In fact it was
way down the list of amount of CPU cycles used (with other
programs at the top spot). Is there any way to make it use up a
lot more of the system and hence go faster? Thanks. You can see
^^^^^^^^^^ what system
the source code at the links I've provided in the previous
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No I can't ^^^^^^^^
threads on this subject.
^^^^^^^ No such thing.

You should realize that Usenet is a 'best efforts, no guarantees'
delivery mechanism. There is never any reason to assume that your
reader has ever read, or ever will read, any of your previous
glorious offerings. That is why most replies contain sufficient
quotes from predecessor messages that they stand by themselves, and
why most newsreaders are able to easily generate such quotes,
together with suitable attribution lines.

cri@xxxxxxxx (Richard Harter) writes:
If you didn't see the previous links then there is no reason for
you to comment on the posting. The proper response to a posting
that you do not understand or are uninterested in is no response
at all.

How can you tall that CBFalconer was not interested? Maybe he was and
he wanted to help but because there was not enough info in the OP's post
he asked for further details.

How can I tell? Experience suggests it. About one third of his
posts are net nannyisms of one sort or another. He virtually
never follows up any of his net nannyism with any actual interest
in the posts that attracted his attention.

More than that, the content and style of his post indicates it.
Nothing in it indicates interest. The entirety is a lecture
about including enough detail, with certain portions of the
original underlined for emphasis.


Richard Harter, cri@xxxxxxxx
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
But the rhetoric of holistic harmony can generate into a kind of
dotty, Prince Charles-style mysticism. -- Richard Dawkins
.

Relevant Pages