2428
Comment:

← Revision 7 as of 20081114 13:42:15 ⇥
2430
converted to 1.6 markup

Deletions are marked like this.  Additions are marked like this. 
Line 15:  Line 15: 
4. [http://pyprocessing.berlios.de/ Pyprocessing]  learned about it, used it, integrated with @parallel with Mike Hansen. Very interesting technology. Is '''very''' likely to finally make it so we can start using parallel computing in the core of the Sage library. This is, imho, major.  4. [[http://pyprocessing.berlios.de/Pyprocessing]]  learned about it, used it, integrated with @parallel with Mike Hansen. Very interesting technology. Is '''very''' likely to finally make it so we can start using parallel computing in the core of the Sage library. This is, imho, major. 
Stein  what I did at Dev Days 1
1. Made a start on sage lite. It didn't go anywhere, but I have some ideas...
2. Implemented and tested the pickle jar. http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3482
It turns out that *all* 465 pickles in sage3.0.3 made on opteron 64bit linux *unpickle* fine on 32bit osx intel.
3. Basic decorator and primitive for parallel computing in sage: http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3467 Actually used this to compute 1.6GB of modular symbols spaces in parallel. Works well. There are a few details that it would be nice to add, but already this is a very nice useful thing to have. I deleted more code than I wrote.
4. Pyprocessing  learned about it, used it, integrated with @parallel with Mike Hansen. Very interesting technology. Is very likely to finally make it so we can start using parallel computing in the core of the Sage library. This is, imho, major.
5. Refereed a lot of patches.
6. Discussed notebook database schema with Tom Boothby.
7. Helped a little bit with the coercion rewrite
8. Rode a Segway.

Modular Forms
At the modular forms workshop, I:
1. Gave an intro talk with challenge problems.
2. with Citro and Butt: Estimated time to solve them.
3. with Citro and Butt: Wrote code and computed 1.6GB of data (weight 2 and levels up to about 2200). Very surprising timing results. Here's the data, actively being computed:
Tasks: 479 total, 9 running, 469 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie Cpu(s): 10.3%us, 3.3%sy, 36.7%ni, 49.7%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 65993220k total, 63870396k used, 2122824k free, 5090292k buffers Swap: 2931820k total, 364768k used, 2567052k free, 17267892k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 10080 was 39 19 1139m 785m 7880 R 100 1.2 23:08.39 sageipython 10069 was 39 19 894m 540m 5820 R 100 0.8 23:08.89 sageipython 10071 was 39 19 2523m 2.1g 8144 R 100 3.4 23:05.69 sageipython 10076 was 39 19 2290m 1.9g 8056 R 100 3.0 23:00.41 sageipython 10077 was 39 19 2003m 1.6g 7992 R 100 2.6 22:59.63 sageipython ...