<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>P-complete and the limits of parallelization</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/devdev/archive/2007/09/07/p-complete-and-the-limits-of-parallelization.aspx</link><description>We're entering an era where CPU clock speeds will soon cease to scale upwards and instead CPU manufacturers are planning to put more and more independent cores on a chip. Intel plans to release an 80-core chip within 5 years . Consequently the research</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>re: P-complete and the limits of parallelization</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/devdev/archive/2007/09/07/p-complete-and-the-limits-of-parallelization.aspx#4836294</link><pubDate>Sun, 09 Sep 2007 02:37:16 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:4836294</guid><dc:creator>Isaac</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Nice work. &amp;nbsp;Although I wish you can post more often.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>A Multicore Language Timetable (Waste More Hardware!) &amp;laquo; SmoothSpan Blog</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/devdev/archive/2007/09/07/p-complete-and-the-limits-of-parallelization.aspx#4846189</link><pubDate>Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:19:01 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:4846189</guid><dc:creator>A Multicore Language Timetable (Waste More Hardware!) « SmoothSpan Blog</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;PingBack from &lt;a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://smoothspan.wordpress.com/2007/09/08/a-multicore-language-timetable-waste-more-hardware/"&gt;http://smoothspan.wordpress.com/2007/09/08/a-multicore-language-timetable-waste-more-hardware/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>re: P-complete and the limits of parallelization</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/devdev/archive/2007/09/07/p-complete-and-the-limits-of-parallelization.aspx#4854231</link><pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:13:59 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:4854231</guid><dc:creator>Gabe Moothart</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;This is really neat stuff. Have you read any of the Google infrastructure papers (particularly the ones on &amp;lt;a href=&amp;quot;&lt;a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://research.google.com/archive/mapreduce.html&amp;quot;&amp;gt;MapReduce&amp;lt;/a&amp;gt;"&gt;http://research.google.com/archive/mapreduce.html&amp;quot;&amp;gt;MapReduce&amp;lt;/a&amp;gt;&lt;/a&gt; and &amp;lt;a href=&amp;quot;&lt;a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://research.google.com/archive/sawzall.html&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Sawzall&amp;lt;/a&amp;gt;"&gt;http://research.google.com/archive/sawzall.html&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Sawzall&amp;lt;/a&amp;gt;&lt;/a&gt;)? They use a highly restricted programming model which allows them to automatically parallelize operations across hundreds or thousands of machines. The Sawzall paper includes a couple of examples in which the exact solution could not be easily distributed, so they used a parallelizable approximation algorithm.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>