On Dec 29, 8:52 am, mk <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > After readinghttp://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0371/I was under > impression that performance of multiprocessing package is similar to > that of thread / threading. However, to familiarize myself with both > packages I wrote my own test of spawning and returning 100,000 empty > threads or processes (while maintaining at most 100 processes / threads > active at any one time), respectively. > > The results I got are very different from the benchmark quoted in PEP > 371. On twin Xeon machine the threaded version executed in 5.54 secs, > while multiprocessing version took over 222 secs to complete! > > Am I doing smth wrong in code below? Or do I have to use > multiprocessing.Pool to get any decent results?
I'm running a 1.6 GHz. I only ran 10000 empty threads and 10000 empty processes. The threads were the ones you wrote. The processes were empty executables written in a lower language, also run 100 at a time, started with 'subprocess', not 'multiprocessing'. The threads took 1.2 seconds. The processes took 24 seconds. The processes you wrote had only finished 3000 after several minutes. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
