Skip to content

Conversation

@jakirkham
Copy link
Member

We no longer have a CORES environment variable that we need to set so one of set_num_workers use cases is unneeded. Further following the user's specifications on the number of workers to user is more straightforward now. In other words, we don't need to factor in a scheduler process. Given these changes just use psutil's cpu_count directly in the workflow if num_workers is not provided. This doesn't handle the -1 case. However it isn't that big of a deal for the user to adapt as this is user facing code that is deployed with the user for analysis.

We no longer have a `CORES` environment variable that we need to set so
one of `set_num_workers` use cases is unneeded. Further following the
user's specifications on the number of workers to user is more
straightforward now. In other words, we don't need to factor in a
scheduler process. Given these changes just use `psutil`'s `cpu_count`
directly in the workflow if `num_workers` is not provided. This doesn't
handle the `-1` case. However it isn't that big of a deal for the user
to adapt as this is user facing code that is deployed with the user for
analysis.
@jakirkham
Copy link
Member Author

One thing to keep in mind here is this eliminates the option for the user to specify CORES as an environment variable and batch the workflow through. So we might want to keep that in play still somehow. Perhaps some of the behavior of set_num_workers needs to adapt for instance.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant