Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Default chunk_size and cores to ppj #79

Open
pipitone opened this issue Apr 12, 2016 · 6 comments
Open

Default chunk_size and cores to ppj #79

pipitone opened this issue Apr 12, 2016 · 6 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@pipitone
Copy link
Collaborator

Back in issue #49 we discussed having chunk size defaulting to the ppj, but we lost track of that issue so I'm filing this.

I'm thinking it the logic should be: unless overridden in the environment or command-line, -c and -j both default to --ppj. That way, you default to running as many commands in parallel in a job as you have processors allocated, and the user only needs to change one option, --ppj, if they want to scale that up or down.

@pipitone pipitone added this to the sometime milestone Apr 12, 2016
@pipitone
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Er, to be clear, setting --ppj on the command line should adjust -j and -c unless they are also set. This isn't the case right now.

@gdevenyi
Copy link
Member

Yes, definitely agree.

Sidenote: do we handle infinite chunk size yet? I think we said if chunks are "0" we allow arbitrarily large chunks?

@pipitone pipitone self-assigned this Apr 21, 2016
@pipitone pipitone modified the milestones: 1.0, sometime Apr 21, 2016
pipitone added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 21, 2016
@pipitone
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Gabe, can you have a look at this fix and let me know what you think.

@gdevenyi
Copy link
Member

This fix up looks okay to me, other than to generalize the default class a bit further if possible.

@pipitone
Copy link
Collaborator Author

We could generalize but then there might be too much metaprogramming black magic. I'll have a think about it this evening.

On Apr 21, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Gabriel A. Devenyi [email protected] wrote:

This fix up looks okay to me, other than to generalize the default class a bit further if possible.


You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub

@gdevenyi
Copy link
Member

Lets handle this via #85

@gdevenyi gdevenyi modified the milestones: 1.1, 1.0 Jul 6, 2016
@gdevenyi gdevenyi reopened this Apr 27, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants