I'm not totally familiar with FF, but reading through their manual and checking out the examples, also using this FastFlow example as a reference ( http://sourc

I'm not totally familiar with FF, but reading through their manual and checking out the examples, also using this FastFlow example as a reference ( http://sourceforge.net/p/mc-fastflow/code/HEAD/tree/examples/pbzip2/ http://sourceforge.net/p/mc-fastflow/code/HEAD/tree/examples...): 1) FF still seems to require explicit locking 2) The job management in FF requires explicit function calls 3) Not illustrated in the example, but RaftLib can auto-parallelize using the raft::out keyword inline with the c++ stream (using SESE) within the DAG. 4) Auto-buffer management (FF appears to require explicit calls to allocate/free workers, and manage memory), RaftLib auto-manages buffer allocation based on queueing occupancy, queueing theory. 5) I like the FF2 explicit scheduling, RaftLib has a few, they're all selected by the run-time. Right now the default is the system scheduler since I'm trying to get the Win64 cross build stabilized before I go back to any crazier threading (there's a fiber plug-in too). 6) The interface is hugely simpler with RaftLib compared to FF for adding "workers" 7) RaftLib explicitly has lock-free communication between actors, seems FF2 requires at least the mutex, and there's not a simpler FIFO interface there (could be totally wrong, please correct me if I am...again, just looking at the docs). There's tons of other differences aesthetically/documentationally (I'm checking out now!) Thanks for the reference, this doesn't seem to pop up on any scholar.google hits and I hadn't run into it at any of the academic/industry conferences I've attended/presented this to (ISPASS, MASCOTS, HPCC, EuroPar, etc.) so sometimes it's hard to find related work. I'll definitely update my rbzip2 benchmark with their pbzip2 code tonight or tomorrow!