<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Multithreaded LIGHT &#038; VIS</title>
	<atom:link href="http://wantonhubris.com/blog/2008/01/26/multithreaded-light-vis/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://wantonhubris.com/blog/2008/01/26/multithreaded-light-vis/</link>
	<description>My work on display for the world to see.  And possibly ignore.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:13:22 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Warren</title>
		<link>http://wantonhubris.com/blog/2008/01/26/multithreaded-light-vis/#comment-356</link>
		<dc:creator>Warren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Feb 2008 18:19:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wantonhubris.com/blog/2008/01/26/multithreaded-light-vis/#comment-356</guid>
		<description>Well, I experimented a lot, believe me.  For LIGHT and VIS it makes no difference if you add additional threads.  Maybe an additional savings of a second or so on a really large map but it's not really worth it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I experimented a lot, believe me.  For LIGHT and VIS it makes no difference if you add additional threads.  Maybe an additional savings of a second or so on a really large map but it&#8217;s not really worth it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gm</title>
		<link>http://wantonhubris.com/blog/2008/01/26/multithreaded-light-vis/#comment-354</link>
		<dc:creator>gm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Feb 2008 14:52:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wantonhubris.com/blog/2008/01/26/multithreaded-light-vis/#comment-354</guid>
		<description>Try doing 2 threads per core and see if you get any more speedup - a lot of processes consider this to be the optimum.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Try doing 2 threads per core and see if you get any more speedup - a lot of processes consider this to be the optimum.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Warren</title>
		<link>http://wantonhubris.com/blog/2008/01/26/multithreaded-light-vis/#comment-337</link>
		<dc:creator>Warren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:48:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wantonhubris.com/blog/2008/01/26/multithreaded-light-vis/#comment-337</guid>
		<description>I just went off the base tool source that id released.  Most of the problem was incorrect function names.  I cleaned up the naming and the code a little bit and it worked.

I'll send you the source though, no problem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just went off the base tool source that id released.  Most of the problem was incorrect function names.  I cleaned up the naming and the code a little bit and it worked.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll send you the source though, no problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: [jimbo]</title>
		<link>http://wantonhubris.com/blog/2008/01/26/multithreaded-light-vis/#comment-336</link>
		<dc:creator>[jimbo]</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:07:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wantonhubris.com/blog/2008/01/26/multithreaded-light-vis/#comment-336</guid>
		<description>What source code did you use as a base for this?
Can you send me the source code for the working threads light and vis?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What source code did you use as a base for this?<br />
Can you send me the source code for the working threads light and vis?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Warren</title>
		<link>http://wantonhubris.com/blog/2008/01/26/multithreaded-light-vis/#comment-330</link>
		<dc:creator>Warren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:52:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wantonhubris.com/blog/2008/01/26/multithreaded-light-vis/#comment-330</guid>
		<description>Hell, if anything, this is reason to have better VIS blocking since it'll compile quicker!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hell, if anything, this is reason to have better VIS blocking since it&#8217;ll compile quicker!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bambuz</title>
		<link>http://wantonhubris.com/blog/2008/01/26/multithreaded-light-vis/#comment-329</link>
		<dc:creator>bambuz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:54:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wantonhubris.com/blog/2008/01/26/multithreaded-light-vis/#comment-329</guid>
		<description>Extremely good!
(Remember folks, this is still no reason not to use vis blocking in your maps)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Extremely good!<br />
(Remember folks, this is still no reason not to use vis blocking in your maps)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.368 seconds -->
