It will do for you in parallel, so less time is needed
Without further proof or explanation, I'd assume this statement to be generally false.
| [reply] |
Ok, I should say 'probabbly' less time is needed
If your proccess doesn't take many resources (cpu/network/memory), then probably it is true, isn't it?
So you have 30 process running at same time in an computer which is perfectly capable to do its work, the it will be faster than running 30 process one by one in a bucle.
If you have an algorithm wich consume all (or near to) cpu / memory / network, then it will not be fastest but slower
Do you agree now ?
Regards,
| [reply] |
If each process takes up very little resources, then the overhead of creating them will cause it all to go slower. If the bottleneck is network or memory, then extra processes won't help. If the bottleneck is CPU, then the processes will let you use more cores, so that will help to a point. You probably don't have 30 cores, so a smaller number of them doing more work each would be better. If you've got a healthy mix of resources, then a second process could help, allowing one to crunch numbers while the other waits for the disk and then vice versa.
Like so many things in life, one is good, a few more are convenient, but too much will kill you.
| [reply] |