[PD] [SPAM] RE: [SPAM] [pd~] and sharing sample tables

[Ingo]

> Computer have been invented to automate repetitive task. I don't know
> what you have to do, but I'm sure you can find a way not doing it one by 
> one.

Yep, I'm sure I will ...



> -----Original Message-----
> From: cyrille henry [mailto:ch at chnry.net]
> Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2019 11:35 PM
> To: Ingo; pd-list at lists.iem.at
> Subject: Re: [SPAM] RE: [PD] [SPAM] [pd~] and sharing sample tables
>
>
>
> Le 22/09/2019   17:48, Ingo a  crit :
> > Thanks a lot, Cyrille!
> >
> > I'll have to see howthis works and how I will get my 10,000+ tables to
> > work with this.
> > Looks like I might have to do one by one or am I wrong?
> Computer have been invented to automate repetitive task. I don't know
> what you have to do, but I'm sure you can find a way not doing it one by 
> one.
>
>
> C
>
> >
> > Ingo
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Pd-list [mailto:pd-list-bounces at lists.iem.at] On Behalf Of
> >> cyrille henry
> >> Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2019 2:35 PM
> >> To: pd-list at lists.iem.at
> >> Subject: Re: [PD] [SPAM] [pd~] and sharing sample tables
> >>
> >> hello,
> >>
> >>
> >> Le 22/09/2019   13:49, Ingo a  crit :
> >>> Hi everybody,
> >>>
> >>> I have 3 questions about using the [pd~] object in an efficient way.
> >>> I'm trying to spread some heavy sample voices over multiple
> >>> processor
> >> cores.
> >>>
> >>> 1)
> >>> How can I read from common sample tables (or other parameter tables
> >>> as
> >>> well) without having to load all sample (1 GB of samples) multiple 
> >>> times?
> >>> In the back of my head I think I heard about a "share memory"
> >>> library but couldn't find anything so far.
> >> have a look at shmem, in deken.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 2)
> >>> How can I assign a specific [pd~] process to a certain core?
> >>> Or does Pd automatically assign a new [pd~] process to another core?
> >>> It would obviously not improve anything if both patches were running
> >>> on the same cpu core .
> >>
> >> This is what the OS is made for. In my experience, it just work.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 3)
> >>> Is there a way that the [pd~] subprocess can receive the [send]
> >>> objects directly from the main process without having to resend each
> >>> individual send/receive object to the inlet of the sub process and
> >>> without having to build a receive object and then resend it by
> >>> prepending a header that can resend everything within the sub process?
> >>
> >> No.
> >> but this workaround can be nicely hidden in an abstraction.
> >> you can create a [mysend] abstraction that is composed by a [send $1]
> >> and a [list prepend $1] connected to a [send to_my_pd_tilde_object]
> etc...
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I'm having a fairly large amount (185) of sends/receive objects and
> >>> tables (way more than 10,000 tables!).
> >>> Anything that might cut down the work and makes it more efficient to
> >>> run would be great!
> >>
> >> you can search and replace all "send" to "mysend" on a pd patch using
> >> any text editor.
> >>
> >> cheers
> >> C
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks a lot!
> >>> Ingo
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> >>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> >>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> >> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> >
> >
> >