Carl J. Van Arsdall wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Carl J. Van Arsdall wrote: > > > > I don't get what threading and Twisted would to do for > > you. The problem you actually have is that you sometimes > > need terminate these other process running other programs. > > Use spawn, fork/exec* or maybe one of the popens. > > > I have a strong need for shared memory space in a large distributed > environment.
Distributed shared memory is a tough trick; only a few systems simulate it. > How does spawn, fork/exec allow me to meet that need? I have no idea why you think threads or fork/exec will give you distributed shared memory. > I'll look into it, but I was under the impression having shared memory > in this situation would be pretty hairy. For example, I could fork of a > 50 child processes, but then I would have to setup some kind of > communication mechanism between them where the server builds up a queue > of requests from child processes and then services them in a FIFO > fashion, does that sound about right? That much is easy. What it has to with what you say you require remains a mystery. > > Threads have little to do with what you say you need. > > > > [...] > > > >> I feel like this is something we've established multiple times. Yes, we > >> want the thread to kill itself. Alright, now that we agree on that, > >> what is the best way to do that. > >> > > > > Wrong. In your examples, you want to kill other processes. You > > can't run external programs such as ssh as Python threads. Ending > > a Python thread has essentially nothing to do with it. > > > There's more going on than ssh here. Since I want to run multiple > processes to multiple devices at one time and still have mass shared > memory I need to use threads. No, you would need to use something that implements shared memory across multiple devices. Threads are multiple lines of execution in the same address space. > There's a mass distributed system that > needs to be controlled, that's the problem I'm trying to solve. You can > think of each ssh as a lengthy IO process that each gets its own > device. I use the threads to allow me to do IO to multiple devices at > once, ssh just happens to be the IO. The combination of threads and ssh > allowed us to have a *primitive* distributed system (and it works too, > so I *can* run external programs in python threads). No, you showed launching it from a Python thread using os.system(). It's not running in the thread; it's running in a separate process. > I didn't say is > was the best or the correct solution, but it works and its what I was > handed when I was thrown into this project. I'm hoping in fifteen years > or when I get an army of monkeys to fix it, it will change. I'm not > worried about killing processes, that's easy, I could kill all the sshs > or whatever else I want without batting an eye. After launching it with os.sytem()? Can you show the code? -- --Bryan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
