Ramine
2/14/2015 3:13:00 AM
Hello,
Here is the results of my benchmark on an 8 cores machine that was
posted by a guy that is called Melzzzz on usenet , read it carefully,
and read my conclusion bellow:
===
Please press a key to exit...:
[bmaxa@maxa-pc aminer]$ taskset -c 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7 wine test.exe
Number of cores is: 8
Scalability with parallel mergesort on 8 cores is: 3.23
Time of parallel mergesort on 8 cores is: 298091 microseconds
Number of cores is: 8
Scalability with parallel quicksort on 8 cores is: 3.52
Time of parallel quicksort on 8 cores is: 348340 microseconds
Number of cores is: 8
Scalability with parallel heapsort on 8 cores is: 7.36
Time of parallel heapsort on 8 cores is: 807979 microseconds
===
I think i have finally understood my parallel algorithms:
Look at my parallel heapsort results:
Number of cores is: 8
Scalability with parallel heapsort on 8 cores is: 7.36
Time of parallel heapsort on 8 cores is: 807979 microseconds
I think that my parallel heapsort algorithm is by nature more cache
efficient this is why it scales very well on more and more cores, so if
you have more cores than 8 cores, i think that my parallel heapsort of
my parallel sort library will be better to replace the other parallel
algorithms such as my parallel mergesort and my parallel quicksort
of my parallel sort library.
The benchmark's results also inform us on an important think: it is that
the parallel mergesort and parallel quicksort of my parallel sort
library are by nature much less cache efficient than my parallel
heapsort of my parallel sort library.
Thank you Melzzzz, you are such a great guy that you have helped me to
run the benchmark.
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.