# Pooled warmup

**URL:** <https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/pooled-warmup/11796>\
**Category:** Developers\
**Tags:** stan\
**Created:** [November 7, 2019, 6:45pm UTC](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/pooled-warmup/11796 "2019-11-07T18:45:56Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![betanalpha](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/discourse.mc-stan.org/betanalpha/32/4_2.png) [@betanalpha](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/u/betanalpha)\
**Post date:** [December 3, 2019, 2:59pm UTC](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/pooled-warmup/11796/5 "2019-12-03T14:59:58Z")

</div>

Correct – see also the progression I suggested in the other thread,

> [@MPI framework for parallelized warmups](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/mpi-framework-for-parallelized-warmups/11671/23):
>
> Personally I think that we want to prioritize chain parallelization first because it is beneficial in of itself.
> 
> 1. Service routes that run multiple chains and create multiple streams of output.
> 2. Parallelizing those routes, allowing all of the interfaces consistent parallelization without having to implement it themselves.
> 3. Progressive warmup to allow for intra chain communication.
> 4. Adaptive warmup through that intra chain communication.

In addition to setting up new adaptation strategies 1 and 2 alone would allow the interfaces to simplify quite a bit and provide a more coherent user experience.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/pooled-warmup/11796)._