Parallel.For(each) and degrees of parallelisation

Question

0.00/5 (No votes)

See more:

I've got 4000 things to do in a loop, and I'd like to do some of them at the same time. I believe Parallel.For scales to the number of cores which on our server is 48. I don't want that many running at the same time as they open network connections etc. and I have a feeling things couldn't handle it downstream so well.

How would you do this? Say up to five things at once? As simply as possible?

Posted 12-Aug-14 4:29am

Rob Philpott

Add a Solution

2 solutions

Solution 1

I'd divide the 4000 objects into five lists of objects, and hand each list to a separate BackgroundWorker to process.

Posted 12-Aug-14 4:45am

OriginalGriff

Comments

Rob Philpott 12-Aug-14 11:05am

hmmm. Could do. Not very simple/neat though.

Add a Solution

Add your solution here

Treat my content as plain text, not as HTML

Preview 0

…

Existing Members

Sign in to your account

...or Join us

Download, Vote, Comment, Publish.

Your Email
Password
Forgot your password?

Your Email
This email is in use. Do you need your password?
Optional Password

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Please subscribe me to the CodeProject newsletters

When answering a question please:

Read the question carefully.
Understand that English isn't everyone's first language so be lenient of bad spelling and grammar.
If a question is poorly phrased then either ask for clarification, ignore it, or edit the question and fix the problem. Insults are not welcome.
Don't tell someone to read the manual. Chances are they have and don't get it. Provide an answer or move on to the next question.

Let's work to help developers, not make them feel stupid.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

Simon_Whale · Accepted Answer · 2014-08-12T05:02:00

Solution 2

you could set the MaxDegreesOfParallelism[^] option in your Parrallel.For loop.

Alternative options I could suggest is look at the Threadpool Class as you are also able to limit the number of threads that it manages.

ThreadPool.SetMaxThreads[^]

Posted 12-Aug-14 5:02am

Simon_Whale

Comments

Rob Philpott 12-Aug-14 11:07am

Ah, yes, I should look at the documentation more closely. That is it, perfectly! Thanks.

I think setting maximum threads on the threadpool might cause the sky to fall in, because that's for your whole process.