[IPython-dev] Update on IPython recent developments

Stefan van der Walt stefan at sun.ac.za
Wed Jan 24 19:28:42 EST 2007

Hi Brian

Thanks for the update, and for all the hard work you guys have put
into the new ipython kernel so far!  I'm especially excited about the
new test framework (they all pass here, woohoo!).

A couple of beginner's questions:

- When a task is executed on many engines, and some of them fail, how
  do I find out on which node it failed, and with which error message?

- Is there a limit on the size of data sent from the controller to an
  engine?  When working on one machine (with more than one engine), is
  data being sent around exactly as on a network (i.e. are there no
  optimisations made for working on a local machine?)  Would a UNIX
  socket be a viable alternative (to a socket) in this case?

- I'd like to code algorithms so they can be executed either with or
  without using the new kernel.  How difficult would it be to
  implement a dummy controller interface that can easily be included
  with a package to avoid a dependency on ipython1?  I.e. (drastically

  def getIDs():
      return [0]

  def push(nodes,**vars):
      for var,value in vars.iteritems():
          # set self._cache[var] = value

  def execute(node,cmd):
      # In cached namespace, execute cmd


Hope these questions make sense on some level.


On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 01:34:19PM -0700, Brian Granger wrote:
> Hello all,
> The purpose of this email is to update IPython developers on the state
> of IPython1, which is currently focused on bringing interactive
> parallel and distributed capabilities to IPython.  Over the past month
> or so, we have done a good amount of refactoring of IPython1.  As of
> now, the current development branch for IPython1 is "saw" rather than
> "chainsaw."  Because people are still using chainsaw, we will maintain
> it for a while (maybe another month), but the saw branch has a lot of
> new things.  I should say, that we are not yet recommending that
> averge users start to use "saw" yet.  There are a few more things we
> need to do before it is a full replacement of the "chainsaw" branch.
> But anyone following the development of IPython1 closely, definitely
> should look at "saw."

More information about the IPython-dev mailing list