Skip to content
This repository

Update parallel docs for new parallel architecture #980

Closed
takluyver opened this Issue November 09, 2011 · 4 comments

3 participants

Thomas Kluyver Min RK Fernando Perez
Thomas Kluyver
Collaborator

parallel_demos and parallel_winhpc have notes at the top stating that they still refer to the IPython.kernel code which was removed before 0.11. These should be updated for the new parallel processing architecture.

Fernando Perez
Owner

We've made some progress with this one. I grepped through the docs, and the only actual mention of IPyhton.kernel (other than for transition purposes) is here:

https://github.com/ipython/ipython/blob/master/docs/source/parallel/parallel_demos.txt#L7

There's also a note about the winhpc example not being updated to zmq:

https://github.com/ipython/ipython/blob/master/docs/source/parallel/parallel_winhpc.txt#L7

So now this should be an easy fix, it's almost there.

Min RK
Owner

Yes, the API expressed in the files was updated prior to 0.11, but the performance numbers and some figures were not regenerated.

Min RK minrk closed this issue from a commit November 27, 2011
Min RK update some parallel docs
* add ssh ipcontroller/ipengine example (closes #1017)
* generated new performance numbers with SGE cluster
* fix some remaining stale references
* removed some screenshots, in favor of editable text

closes #980
57c7e48
Min RK minrk closed this in 57c7e48 November 27, 2011
Min RK
Owner

I reran the examples (not on WinHPC), and updated the docs accordingly. I did find some typos / issues from when the mcpricer example was turned into a notebook, and fixed those as well.

Something to note (/cc @ellisonbg): a notebook that relies on the implicit figure-closing behavior of the inline backend will not export as a functional script, because all plots will be to the same figure. It will also suffer from this problem if the inline backend is not used, or even if the inline backend is used with InlineBackend.close_figures=False. Relying on this behavior for anything other than a demo of the notebook is probably not a good idea.

Fernando Perez
Owner

Thanks for the fixes! And good point on the figure closing, indeed that behavior really is very 'notebooky', anyone making a script or thinking of one should be usig explicit figure() calls.

Matthias Bussonnier Carreau referenced this issue from a commit November 29, 2011
Commit has since been removed from the repository and is no longer available.
Brian E. Granger ellisonbg referenced this issue from a commit January 10, 2012
Commit has since been removed from the repository and is no longer available.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.