On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 06:33:33 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
<
C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Mar 2022 00:56:23 -0000, Barry Schwarz <
schw...@delq.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 17:05:23 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
>> <
C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If 200 jobs need to be done, varying in time from 400 to 4000 seconds each, can anybody see why it would be disadvantageous to have an odd number of workers doing these tasks?
>>>
>>> I don't think it matters due to the randomness. But someone who shall remain nameless said that I should have an even number of workers to prevent an idle one at the end while the last job is finished.
>>
>> It depends on the definition of advantageous. If the objective is
>> that no one should ever by idle, then 1 worker is the most
>> advantageous.
>
>The definition in this case is getting the jobs all done as quickly as possible. Which is equal to having the least total idle man-hours.
Not at all.
should equal the number of jobs. That will result in all the jobs
being finished at the end of 4000 seconds.
To have the least total idle man-hours, use only one worker. That
will result in 0 idle man-hours
>> Furthermore, the assertion that an even number of workers will prevent
>> an idle worker makes no sense.
>
>Agreed. But someone programming for a very famous place disagrees.
As you state below, you acknowledge that his disagreement is at odds
with the facts. Why would the notoriety of the workplace make his
ill-reasoned disagreement worth mentioning.
>> Even with two workers, unless the last two jobs end simultaneously,
>> one worker will be idle while the other finishes.
>
>Indeed.
>
>> With 200 workers, everyone except those working on 4000 second jobs
>> will be idle at the end.
>
>Also indeed.