Marco Arment

So it's basically saying there are some things that you can do in parallel and some things that can't.

So it's basically saying there are some things that you can do in parallel and some things that can't.

And even if you make the things that can be done in parallel happen instantaneously, which you're not going to, but if you can make them be done instantaneously because you deploy 7 million processors and there's no overhead to distributing the work to them, which also doesn't happen, you're never going to get it faster than the time it takes for those serial portions.

And even if you make the things that can be done in parallel happen instantaneously, which you're not going to, but if you can make them be done instantaneously because you deploy 7 million processors and there's no overhead to distributing the work to them, which also doesn't happen, you're never going to get it faster than the time it takes for those serial portions.

Sometimes running a particular compression algorithm has parts of it that are parallelizable and parts of it that are not. And you're never going to make it run faster than the parts that are not. They are the long pole. They are the thing that you can't shrink. No matter how many more threads you throw at it, there are certain portions of it that you can't work on at the same time.

Sometimes running a particular compression algorithm has parts of it that are parallelizable and parts of it that are not. And you're never going to make it run faster than the parts that are not. They are the long pole. They are the thing that you can't shrink. No matter how many more threads you throw at it, there are certain portions of it that you can't work on at the same time.

Now, this particular task, compressing this, is this compression algorithm parallelizable? If so, is it is the thing that is running it in a parallel not devoting enough threads to it? This can happen, especially on macOS.

Now, this particular task, compressing this, is this compression algorithm parallelizable? If so, is it is the thing that is running it in a parallel not devoting enough threads to it? This can happen, especially on macOS.

There's lots of things that I've complained about this before where it's like there's a task and there's a portion of it that are parallelizable, but it is intentionally run by the program or the OS. in a way that it uses fewer resources. It's run at low priority. It's run at a low number of threads so that it doesn't make your computer feel unresponsive.

There's lots of things that I've complained about this before where it's like there's a task and there's a portion of it that are parallelizable, but it is intentionally run by the program or the OS. in a way that it uses fewer resources. It's run at low priority. It's run at a low number of threads so that it doesn't make your computer feel unresponsive.

But sometimes this is the only thing you want your computer to do and you want it to do it right now. I talk about like, you know, the photos. Please recognize faces now. Please analyze my photos now. It's literally the only thing I want you to do. I'm going to walk away, use all my resources to do it. And macOS and Apple's apps in particular are terrible at that.

But sometimes this is the only thing you want your computer to do and you want it to do it right now. I talk about like, you know, the photos. Please recognize faces now. Please analyze my photos now. It's literally the only thing I want you to do. I'm going to walk away, use all my resources to do it. And macOS and Apple's apps in particular are terrible at that.

I'm going to guess in this case, the main problem is the right-click finder thing that compresses files has a cap on how many threads it will ever use.

I'm going to guess in this case, the main problem is the right-click finder thing that compresses files has a cap on how many threads it will ever use.

therefore is never going to go faster than that now it may also be the case that this this algorithm is not parallelizable sufficiently so more threads wouldn't help i don't know specifically but these are the potential scenarios one of them is just like theoretical like if you pick an algorithm you can't break into like 75 chunks you can only break it into like four chunks right there's it's you know there's not parallelizable past that because there's interdependent data interdependencies between the tasks and they need to communicate and synchronize with each other and there's serial portions then you're stuck but

therefore is never going to go faster than that now it may also be the case that this this algorithm is not parallelizable sufficiently so more threads wouldn't help i don't know specifically but these are the potential scenarios one of them is just like theoretical like if you pick an algorithm you can't break into like 75 chunks you can only break it into like four chunks right there's it's you know there's not parallelizable past that because there's interdependent data interdependencies between the tasks and they need to communicate and synchronize with each other and there's serial portions then you're stuck but

But specifically in Apple platforms, Apple is good slash bad about making choices for you that ensure that the system remains responsive under all circumstances by limiting the amount of parallel work that can be done. And you would like more options like, for example, past sponsor Backblaze that I use on my computer to back it up.

But specifically in Apple platforms, Apple is good slash bad about making choices for you that ensure that the system remains responsive under all circumstances by limiting the amount of parallel work that can be done. And you would like more options like, for example, past sponsor Backblaze that I use on my computer to back it up.

it actually has a pop-up menu in the little like settings that says, hey, when Backblaze is running and backing up your stuff, how many threads do you want it to use? And the default is pretty low because you don't like, as we say in the ad reads, you don't even know Backblaze is running half the time. The default is like, just do your work. It'll back up your stuff behind the scenes or whatever.

it actually has a pop-up menu in the little like settings that says, hey, when Backblaze is running and backing up your stuff, how many threads do you want it to use? And the default is pretty low because you don't like, as we say in the ad reads, you don't even know Backblaze is running half the time. The default is like, just do your work. It'll back up your stuff behind the scenes or whatever.