Hubbry Logo
Embarrassingly parallelEmbarrassingly parallelMain
Open search
Embarrassingly parallel
Community hub
Embarrassingly parallel
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Embarrassingly parallel
Embarrassingly parallel
Embarrassingly parallel
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In parallel computing, an embarrassingly parallel workload or problem (also called embarrassingly parallelizable, perfectly parallel, delightfully parallel or pleasingly parallel) is one where little or no effort is needed to split the problem into a number of parallel tasks.[1] This is due to minimal or no dependency upon communication between the parallel tasks, or for results between them.[2]

These differ from distributed computing problems, which need communication between tasks, especially communication of intermediate results. They are easier to perform on server farms which lack the special infrastructure used in a true supercomputer cluster. They are well-suited to large, Internet-based volunteer computing platforms such as BOINC, and suffer less from parallel slowdown. The opposite of embarrassingly parallel problems are inherently serial problems, which cannot be parallelized at all.

A common example of an embarrassingly parallel problem is 3D video rendering handled by a graphics processing unit, where each frame (forward method) or pixel (ray tracing method) can be handled with no interdependency.[3] Some forms of password cracking are another embarrassingly parallel task that is easily distributed on central processing units, CPU cores, or clusters.

Etymology

[edit]

"Embarrassingly" is used here to refer to parallelization problems which are "embarrassingly easy".[4] The term may imply embarrassment on the part of developers or compilers: "Because so many important problems remain unsolved mainly due to their intrinsic computational complexity, it would be embarrassing not to develop parallel implementations of polynomial homotopy continuation methods."[5] The term is first found in the literature in a 1986 book on multiprocessors by MATLAB's creator Cleve Moler,[6] who claims to have invented the term.[7]

An alternative term, pleasingly parallel, has gained some use, perhaps to avoid the negative connotations of embarrassment in favor of a positive reflection on the parallelizability of the problems: "Of course, there is nothing embarrassing about these programs at all."[8]

Examples

[edit]

A trivial example involves serving static data. It would take very little effort to have many processing units produce the same set of bits. Indeed, the famous Hello World problem could easily be parallelized with few programming considerations or computational costs.

Some examples of embarrassingly parallel problems include:

Implementations

[edit]
  • In R (programming language) – The Simple Network of Workstations (SNOW) package implements a simple mechanism for using a set of workstations or a Beowulf cluster for embarrassingly parallel computations.[16] Similar R packages include "future", "parallel" and others.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Embarrassingly parallel

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In parallel computing, an embarrassingly parallel problem, also known as pleasingly parallel or perfectly parallel, is one that can be readily decomposed into a large number of independent computational tasks with minimal or no inter-task communication or dependency, allowing for straightforward execution across multiple processing units. This characteristic makes such problems ideal for high-performance computing environments, as the primary challenge lies in task distribution and load balancing rather than synchronization. The term "embarrassingly parallel" was coined by computer scientists in the late 1980s or early 1990s to describe computations where the potential for parallelism is so obvious that it borders on trivial, though some fields like simulations prefer the neutral alternative "naturally parallel" to avoid the pejorative connotation. Common examples include methods for estimating values like π through random sampling, where each simulation run is independent and results are aggregated post-execution, and the generation of the , where image pixels are computed separately without inter-pixel dependencies. Other applications span image processing tasks like geometric transformations (e.g., rotation or scaling of graphical elements) and optimization problems such as ray-tracing in , where tasks like rendering individual rays or frames can proceed autonomously. These problems are particularly valuable in scalable systems, as they achieve near-linear with increasing processors up to the number of tasks, though real-world implementations may require initial partitioning, final result via shared structures, and handling of pseudo-random number generation to ensure across processes. In practice, embarrassingly parallel workloads are implemented using patterns like parallel loops for uniform tasks or master-worker architectures for dynamic scheduling, often in frameworks supporting . While purely embarrassingly parallel cases are rare due to overheads like I/O or load imbalance, "nearly embarrassingly parallel" variants with limited communication remain prevalent in fields like scientific simulations and processing.

Definition and Concepts

Definition

Parallel computing involves the simultaneous use of multiple compute resources, such as processors or cores, to solve a computational problem by dividing it into discrete parts that can be executed concurrently, thereby reducing overall execution time. This approach requires breaking the problem into independent instructions executed on different processing units, coordinated by an overall mechanism to manage the parallelism. Embarrassingly parallel problems, also known as ideally parallel problems, are a of parallel computations where the workload can be decomposed into a set of completely independent subtasks that require little or no coordination beyond initial data distribution and final result aggregation. In these cases, each subtask operates in isolation without inter-task dependencies, communication, , or load balancing during execution, distinguishing them from other parallelization models like message-passing systems, which rely on explicit data exchange between processes, or shared-memory parallelism, which necessitates mechanisms to manage concurrent access to common resources. The basic workflow for embarrassingly parallel computations typically begins with partitioning the input data into independent subsets, followed by executing each subtask concurrently across multiple processors, and concluding with a simple combination of results, such as or , to form the final output. This structure exploits the obvious concurrency inherent in the problem once tasks are defined, making it straightforward to achieve near-linear with increasing numbers of processors.

Key Characteristics

Embarrassingly parallel problems are defined by the fundamental of their constituent tasks, where subtasks execute without any need for intercommunication, , or coordination during computation. This property enables straightforward assignment of tasks to multiple processors, achieving perfect load distribution and limited only by the number of available processing units. As a result, such problems can theoretically utilize all processors fully from the outset, without dependencies that could cause idle time or bottlenecks. A key advantage stems from the minimal overhead associated with parallelization, as there are no communication costs, barriers, or mechanisms for required. This leads to near-linear in practice, closely approximating the ideal predicted by when the serial fraction of the computation approaches zero. Under Amdahl's formulation, the S(p)S(p) for pp processors is given by S(p)=1f+1−fp,S(p) = \frac{1}{f + \frac{1-f}{p}}, where ff is the serial fraction; for embarrassingly parallel workloads, f≈0f \approx 0, yielding S(p)≈pS(p) \approx p. However, real-world implementations may encounter minor limitations from operations or task setup, slightly deviating from perfect linearity. Despite these strengths, embarrassingly parallel approaches have notable limitations. If individual tasks are too granular or short-lived, the overhead from task dispatching, memory allocation, and result collection can dominate execution time, eroding and making parallelization counterproductive. Uneven partitioning of the may also introduce load imbalances, where some processors finish early and while others process larger shares, necessitating dynamic balancing techniques to mitigate. Fundamentally, these problems are unsuitable for applications with inherent task dependencies, as any required interaction would violate the assumption and introduce challenges. In terms of scalability, embarrassingly parallel problems particularly benefit from , which emphasizes scaling problem size alongside processor count to sustain . This contrasts with Amdahl's focus on fixed-size problems, allowing embarrassingly parallel computations to exploit larger datasets or more iterations with additional resources, achieving speedups that grow with pp while keeping the scaled serial fraction low.

History and Etymology

Origin of the Term

The term "embarrassingly parallel" was coined by in the mid-1980s while working on applications at Intel's Scientific Computers division, particularly in the context of the iPSC system. Moler first publicly used the phrase in his presentation titled "Matrix Computation on Distributed Memory Multiprocessors" at the Knoxville Conference on Multiprocessors, held in August 1985. He applied it to matrix computations, where many independent tasks could be distributed across multiple processors without inter-processor communication, exemplifying a level of parallelism that required no sophisticated algorithmic redesign. The paper was published in the by SIAM in 1986. The choice of "embarrassing" in the term underscores the trivial nature of parallelizing such problems, implying that the ease borders on being almost too straightforward for the complexities typically associated with parallel algorithms, which often involve challenging issues like load balancing and . This humorous connotation captured the informal spirit of early discussions in conferences, where researchers grappled with harnessing emerging hardware for scientific workloads. Following its introduction, the term rapidly entered the of supercomputing in the late , appearing in papers on applications amenable to and architectures, such as methods for physical simulations. Moler's usage is widely recognized as the origin of the term. The phrase emerged amid the proliferation of massively parallel processing (MPP) systems and early supercomputers in the and 1990s, highlighting opportunities for simple scaling in contrast to more interdependent computational tasks.

Evolution in Parallel Computing

The roots of embarrassingly parallel computing trace back to the and , when early systems began enabling the execution of independent tasks without significant . Systems like the Burroughs D825 in 1962, a symmetric MIMD with up to four CPUs connected via a , allowed for parallel processing of separate workloads, laying groundwork for environments where multiple jobs could run concurrently on shared hardware. In the , advancements such as the ILLIAC-IV (1972), featuring 64 processing elements, supported computations on independent data arrays, while vector processors like the (1976) accelerated embarrassingly parallel operations through pipelined execution of independent vector instructions. These developments, though limited by hardware constraints, highlighted the potential for scaling simple parallel workloads in batch-oriented and early supercomputing contexts. Formal recognition of embarrassingly parallel paradigms emerged in the 1980s alongside the rise of specialized supercomputers, shifting focus toward architectures optimized for independent task distribution. Vector supercomputers from Research, such as the (1982), enabled efficient handling of data-parallel workloads with minimal synchronization, achieving peak performances like 800 MFLOPS through parallel pipelines. Massively parallel processors (MPPs) like the CM-1 (1985) from Thinking Machines, with 65,536 single-bit processors, further exemplified this by executing vast numbers of independent operations simultaneously, influencing applications in simulation and modeling. By the late 1980s, (formalized in 1967 but widely applied then) underscored the efficiency gains for workloads with low communication overhead, solidifying embarrassingly parallel as a key category in taxonomies. The 1990s marked widespread adoption through , particularly with clusters, which democratized access to parallel processing for embarrassingly parallel tasks. Originating at Goddard in 1994, these commodity PC-based clusters interconnected via Ethernet supported scalable execution of independent jobs, such as scientific simulations, without custom hardware, achieving teraflop-scale performance by the decade's end. In the 2000s, extended this to heterogeneous networks, while frameworks like Hadoop's (introduced in 2004) revolutionized processing by treating map phases as embarrassingly parallel operations across distributed nodes, enabling petabyte-scale independent task execution with . These milestones emphasized scalability for data-intensive applications, contrasting with earlier communication-bound systems. This evolution influenced by promoting a shift from communication-intensive models like MPI, which required explicit , to data-parallel frameworks that minimized overhead for independent tasks. and successors like (2010) prioritized "embarrassingly parallel" map operations over MPI's message-passing, reducing programming complexity for large-scale analytics and achieving near-linear speedups on clusters. By the 2010s, this paradigm contributed to cloud computing's rise, where platforms like AWS and Google Cloud supported elastic allocation for embarrassingly parallel jobs, as seen in hybrid batch systems processing terabytes with sub-minute latencies. Recent developments through 2025 have integrated embarrassingly parallel concepts with AI accelerators, serverless architectures, and , expanding beyond traditional HPC. GPUs and TPUs, as in modern AI training pipelines, exploit massive parallelism for independent inference tasks, with frameworks like enabling distributed execution across accelerators for workloads scaling to exaflops. Serverless platforms, such as , have adopted this for real-time embarrassingly parallel problems, like patient monitoring simulations, achieving sub-second latencies for thousands of independent streams without infrastructure management. In , post-2010 expansions facilitate on-device AI processing, where neuromorphic chips and handle independent tasks at the network periphery, reducing latency for IoT applications while preserving .

Examples

Computational Examples

One classic example of an embarrassingly parallel computation is , where the value of a definite is approximated by generating and evaluating numerous independent random samples. In the specific case of estimating π, random points are thrown into a enclosing a quarter-circle, and the ratio of points falling inside the circle to the total points yields an approximation of π/4 after scaling by 4; each point's evaluation is isolated from others, allowing parallel execution across processors with minimal beyond final averaging. The following illustrates a parallel implementation for the π approximation using methods, where is forked independently per task and results are aggregated:

function monte_carlo_pi(num_samples): inside_count = 0 for i in 1 to num_samples: x = random_uniform(0, 1) y = random_uniform(0, 1) if x² + y² ≤ 1: inside_count += 1 return 4 * (inside_count / num_samples) # Parallel version ([pseudocode](/page/Pseudocode)): parallel_tasks = [fork](/page/Fork)(num_processors) for task in parallel_tasks: task_pi = monte_carlo_pi(num_samples / num_processors) parallel_results = collect(task_pi from all tasks) pi_estimate = average(parallel_results)

function monte_carlo_pi(num_samples): inside_count = 0 for i in 1 to num_samples: x = random_uniform(0, 1) y = random_uniform(0, 1) if x² + y² ≤ 1: inside_count += 1 return 4 * (inside_count / num_samples) # Parallel version ([pseudocode](/page/Pseudocode)): parallel_tasks = [fork](/page/Fork)(num_processors) for task in parallel_tasks: task_pi = monte_carlo_pi(num_samples / num_processors) parallel_results = collect(task_pi from all tasks) pi_estimate = average(parallel_results)

This approach leverages the independence of samples, with the only overhead being the summation of local estimates. Another illustrative case is image processing tasks involving pixel-wise operations, such as applying a blur filter to an image, where each pixel's transformation depends solely on its local neighborhood without requiring global inter-pixel communication during the core computation. For instance, in Gaussian blurring, the output intensity at each pixel is computed as a weighted sum of neighboring input pixels, and these operations can be partitioned across image regions or strips for independent parallel execution, with boundary overlaps handled via simple data exchange if needed. Variants of prime number sieving also demonstrate embarrassingly parallel characteristics after an initial sequential setup, such as marking multiples in the ; subsequent phases involve independent primality checks across disjoint ranges of numbers, where each range can be tested in parallel without inter-range dependencies. For example, after sieving small primes, verifying the primality of large candidates (e.g., via trial division up to the ) in separate intervals proceeds autonomously per processor. Element-wise matrix operations, such as vector addition or , further exemplify this , as computations for each element occur without interactions between rows or columns, enabling straightforward distribution across processing units. In vector addition, for instance, each output element is simply the sum of corresponding inputs from two vectors, allowing full parallelism over the vector length with no required beyond result assembly.

Real-World Applications

Embarrassingly parallel techniques have found widespread application in bioinformatics through projects like , which since 2000 has utilized to simulate by running independent trajectory simulations across volunteer-hosted machines, enabling the exploration of vast conformational spaces without inter-task dependencies. These simulations treat each folding trajectory as an autonomous computation, scaling to millions of CPU hours contributed globally to study diseases such as Alzheimer's and COVID-19. In quantitative finance, methods for portfolio exemplify embarrassingly parallel workloads, where thousands of independent simulation paths are generated to model asset price evolutions under processes, allowing parallel execution on clusters to achieve near-linear speedups in valuing complex derivatives. This approach handles the high dimensionality of financial models by distributing path computations across processors, reducing computation time from days to hours for real-time trading decisions. Search engines leverage embarrassingly parallel processing in web crawling and indexing, as seen in early infrastructure using to distribute the fetching and parsing of independent web pages across commodity clusters, enabling the scalable indexing of billions of documents. Each mapper processes isolated URLs without , facilitating efficient handling of the web's growth and supporting rapid query responses. High-throughput genomic sequencing relies on embarrassingly parallel read alignment, where millions of short DNA reads from sequencers are independently mapped to a reference genome using tools like BWA or Bowtie, distributed across compute nodes to process terabytes of data in parallel. This independence allows for straightforward scaling on HPC systems, accelerating variant calling in projects like the 1000 Genomes Project. In the 2020s, modeling has increasingly adopted embarrassingly parallel runs for and predictions, as in cloud-based systems generating independent simulations of atmospheric variables to quantify in forecasts. These , comprising hundreds of perturbed runs, enable probabilistic outputs for events like hurricanes, with parallelization on platforms like AWS reducing creation from weeks to days. Cryptocurrency mining, particularly for proof-of-work blockchains like , operates as an embarrassingly parallel task by distributing nonce hashing attempts across GPU or ASIC arrays, where each core independently computes SHA-256 double hashes without communication until a valid block is found. This structure has driven the proliferation of specialized hardware, with mining pools coordinating parallel efforts to solve blocks in seconds rather than years on single machines.

Implementations

Software Approaches

Data-parallel libraries facilitate the implementation of embarrassingly parallel workloads by distributing independent computations across multiple processing units. Apache Spark, an open-source unified analytics engine, supports such workloads through its core abstraction of Resilient Distributed Datasets (RDDs), where transformations like map and flatMap apply functions independently to each data partition in parallel across a cluster, with minimal coordination beyond data shuffling for subsequent operations. This approach leverages Spark's lazy evaluation to optimize execution, making it ideal for large-scale data processing tasks such as independent simulations or feature extractions on partitioned datasets. Similarly, OpenMP, a standard API for shared-memory multiprocessing, enables loop-level parallelism via the #pragma omp parallel for directive, which automatically divides independent loop iterations among threads without requiring explicit synchronization, as long as iterations have no data dependencies. High-level frameworks simplify the orchestration of embarrassingly parallel tasks by abstracting away low-level details like thread management or network communication. In Python, the multiprocessing module provides a Pool class for creating worker process pools that execute tasks concurrently, bypassing the Global Interpreter Lock (GIL) and supporting independent function applications to iterables via methods like map or imap, which distribute work evenly across available cores. For distributed environments, Ray, a unified framework for scaling AI and Python applications, implements dynamic task graphs where remote functions (@ray.remote) can be invoked asynchronously and executed in parallel across a cluster with fault tolerance, requiring no inter-task dependencies for embarrassingly parallel scenarios like hyperparameter tuning or Monte Carlo simulations. Dask, another Python-native library, extends NumPy and Pandas to larger-than-memory datasets by building task graphs of delayed computations, allowing seamless scaling from single machines to clusters for independent operations on partitioned arrays or dataframes with minimal synchronization overhead. Cloud-native tools further democratize embarrassingly parallel execution by providing serverless platforms that automatically scale independent function invocations. allows developers to deploy functions that run in isolated execution environments, scaling horizontally to handle thousands of concurrent invocations without provisioning infrastructure; each invocation processes an event independently, making it suitable for tasks like image resizing or data validation across distributed inputs. Google Cloud Functions operates similarly, executing event-driven code in a fully managed environment where multiple instances can run in parallel to process independent requests, such as API-triggered computations, with built-in concurrency controls to manage load. Effective implementation of embarrassingly parallel workloads relies on best practices for workload distribution and result handling. Data partitioning strategies ensure balanced load across processors: round-robin partitioning cyclically assigns data items to partitions for uniform distribution, preventing hotspots in scenarios with variable task durations, while hash-based partitioning uses a on keys to co-locate related data, though it risks skew if keys are unevenly distributed. Results from parallel tasks are typically aggregated using reduction operations, such as summing values from independent computations in Spark's reduce or Dask's compute, which collect and combine outputs post-execution with low overhead. Post-2020 advancements in containerized environments have enhanced support for embarrassingly parallel jobs through operators, which automate the deployment and scaling of parallel workloads. For instance, Jobs natively support fine-grained parallel processing by launching multiple pods to consume from a shared work queue, enabling independent task execution across nodes; extensions like Workflows, updated in versions post-2020, provide declarative DAGs for orchestrating parallel steps in containerized pipelines, facilitating scalable execution of independent subtasks in cloud-native HPC applications.

Performance Considerations

In embarrassingly parallel executions, performance is primarily influenced by overheads associated with input distribution and output collection, as the core tasks themselves incur no inter-processor communication costs. The total execution time can be modeled as T=Tsetup+Ttaskp+TcollectT = T_{\text{setup}} + \frac{T_{\text{task}}}{p} + T_{\text{collect}}, where TsetupT_{\text{setup}} represents the initial distribution of inputs to pp processors, Ttaskp\frac{T_{\text{task}}}{p} is the parallelizable time per processor assuming ideal division, and TcollectT_{\text{collect}} accounts for aggregating results. This model highlights that overheads are typically low but can dominate for small tasks, as seen in applications where setup and collection added negligible time compared to serial execution, yielding near-linear scaling. Load balancing becomes critical when task sizes vary, as uneven distribution can lead to idle processors and reduced . Dynamic scheduling strategies, such as master-worker models with a shared task queue, allow processors to pull work as needed, mitigating imbalances without prior knowledge of task durations. For instance, in distributed ray tracing, dynamic assignment via a global queue achieves statistically balanced loads across units of execution, outperforming static partitioning for unpredictable workloads. Scalability in embarrassingly parallel systems often approaches ideal for but is limited by I/O bottlenecks, particularly with large datasets where parallel reads or writes overload shared storage. Empirical benchmarks demonstrate near-linear up to thousands of cores; for example, embarrassingly parallel workloads on supercomputers like Frontera achieve efficient weak scaling with fixed problem size per core, processing massive ensembles without communication overhead. However, contention can cap performance beyond 1,000 cores, as I/O operations fail to with compute resources. Effective monitoring and profiling are essential to identify utilization issues in cluster environments. Tools like Ganglia provide scalable, real-time tracking of CPU, , and network metrics across nodes, enabling detection of underutilization in embarrassingly parallel jobs. Common pitfalls include contention in shared- setups, where multiple threads compete for bandwidth, degrading even in independent tasks; this is exacerbated on multicore systems without proper affinity controls. In 2025-era , the independence of embarrassingly parallel tasks simplifies offloading to accelerators like GPUs in CPU-GPU hybrids, as no is required beyond initial data transfer. Recent frameworks such as Kokkos facilitate portable GPU acceleration for such workloads, achieving up to 6.4x speedups in sea-ice simulations by distributing independent finite-element computations across heterogeneous nodes.

References

  1. https://www.cise.ufl.edu/research/ParallelPatterns/PatternLanguage/AlgorithmStructure/EmbParallel.htm
  2. https://www.cs.nmt.edu/~cs451/lectures/Embarassingly_Parallel.pdf
  3. https://cis.temple.edu/~shi/wwwroot/shi/public_html/super96/jd/ctf.html
  4. https://www.cs.fsu.edu/~mascagni/papers/RICP1999_2.pdf
  5. https://www.cs.iusb.edu/~danav/teach/b424/b424_23_embpar.html
  6. https://hpc.llnl.gov/documentation/tutorials/introduction-parallel-computing-tutorial
  7. https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs3410/2024fa/notes/parallel-perf.html
  8. https://www.cs.hunter.cuny.edu/~sweiss/course_materials/csci493.65/lecture_notes/chapter04.pdf
  9. https://cis.temple.edu/~shi/wwwroot/shi/public_html/docs/amdahl/amdahl.html
  10. https://www.cac.cornell.edu/education/Training/ParallelMay2011/ParallelProgramming.pdf
  11. https://blogs.mathworks.com/cleve/2013/11/12/the-intel-hypercube-part-2-reposted/
  12. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/83677/what-is-embarrassing-about-an-embarrassingly-parallel-problem
  13. https://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~paullu/C681/parallel.timeline.html
  14. https://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/upcrc/ParallelComputing_backgrounder.pdf
  15. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/tr-2001-76.pdf
  16. https://computerhistory.org/events/beowulfclass-pc-clusters-an-historical/
  17. https://research.google.com/archive/mapreduce-osdi04.pdf
  18. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0901.0131
  19. https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2006/EECS-2006-183.pdf
  20. https://personales.upv.es/thinkmind/dl/conferences/cloudcomputing/cloud_computing_2010/cloud_computing_2010_1_20_50043.pdf
  21. https://arxiv.org/html/2504.03647v1
  22. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9983710/
  23. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.03265
  24. https://researchcomputing.syr.edu/monte-carlo-algorithm-computing/
  25. https://sites.cs.ucsb.edu/~tyang/class/110b02/CH3.pdf
  26. https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Beowulf/beowulf_book/beowulf_book/node30.html
  27. https://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/matloff/public_html/158/PLN/pr.pdf
  28. https://www.stolaf.edu/people/rab/pdc/text/alg.htm
  29. https://hpc-tutorials.llnl.gov/mpi/examples/ser_prime.c
  30. https://labs.acme.byu.edu/PythonEssentials/Parallel_Intro/Parallel_Intro.html
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10398258/
  32. https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.5526
  33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225853128_Managing_Parallel_and_Distributed_Monte_Carlo_Simulations_for_Computational_Finance_in_a_Grid_Environment
  34. https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~pingali/CS395T/2012sp/lectures/MR-nikhil-panpalia.pdf
  35. https://www.istc-cc.cmu.edu/publications/papers/2015/massively_parallel_read_mapping_with_gpus_src-asplos15.pdf
  36. https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2009-10-3-212
  37. https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/7041/2024/
  38. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/103/8/BAMS-D-21-0164.1.xml
  39. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7544340
  40. https://www.innoq.com/en/blog/2018/06/blockchain-mining-embarrassingly-parallel/
  41. https://www.openmp.org/wp-content/uploads/OpenMP-4.0-C.pdf
  42. https://docs.python.org/3/library/multiprocessing.html
  43. https://examples.dask.org/applications/embarrassingly-parallel.html
  44. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/lambda-concurrency.html
  45. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/system-design/data-partitioning-techniques/
  46. https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/job/fine-parallel-processing-work-queue/
  47. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.3123
  48. https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~lin/papers/tvcg13.pdf
  49. https://cvw.cac.cornell.edu/scalability/scalability-speedup/do-more-meaning
  50. https://developer.nvidia.com/ganglia-monitoring-system
  51. https://blog.imaginationtech.com/embarrassingly-parallel-problems
  52. https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/18/3017/2025/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.