[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Matlab equivalents needed (yes very original)
From: |
Sergei Steshenko |
Subject: |
RE: Matlab equivalents needed (yes very original) |
Date: |
Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:23:25 -0700 (PDT) |
--- On Mon, 6/28/10, Michael V <address@hidden> wrote:
From: Michael V <address@hidden>
Subject: RE: Matlab equivalents needed (yes very original)
To: address@hidden, address@hidden
Date: Monday, June 28, 2010, 5:26 PM
So are any of these cluster-safe? If I have say 160 CPUs running 160 processes
(1 per CPU) and
all processes write to same directory on same hard drive, is there a chance of
conflict?
Also, is there an implementation of these for Matlab? I do not want to maintain
two codebases.
Thanks,
Michael
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:38:55 -0500
Subject: Re: FW: Matlab equivalents needed (yes very original)
From: address@hidden
To: address@hidden
For (2) do any of these solve the issue?
tmpnam
tmpfile
mkstemp
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with
Hotmail. Get busy.
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Something like <hostname>.<PID> is sufficient for a unique ID - because hosts
have unique name in a cluster, and PID is unique in a host.
Maybe <hostname>.<PID>.<current_time_since_the_epoch> .
Regards,
Sergei.