On 04/24/2013 08:00 PM, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
On 25 April 2013 00:26, Dave Angel <da...@davea.name> wrote:
On 04/24/2013 05:09 PM, William Ray Wing wrote:
<SNIP>
My question is why bother with multithreading? Why not just do these as
separate processes? You said "they in no way interact with each other" and
that's a clear clue that separate processes would be cleaner.
It's using multiprocessing rather than threads: they are separate processes.
You're right; I was completely off base. brain-freeze.
<SNIP>
It's state that is passed to it by the subprocess and should only be
accessed by the top-level process after the subprocess completes (I
think!).
Separate processes will find it much more difficult to interact, which is a
good thing most of the time. Further, they seem to be scheduled more
efficiently because of the GIL, though that may not make that much
difference when you're time-limited by network data.
They are separate processes and do not share the GIL (unless I'm very
much mistaken).
No, you're not mistaken. Somehow I interpreted the original as saying
multi-thread, and everything else was wrong as a result. Now it sounds
like a bug in, or misuse of, the Pool class.
--
DaveA
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
