Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote: >> Roy Smith <r...@panix.com>: >> IOW, the processes are there to exercise the CPUs and should not >> represent individual connections or other dynamic entities. > > That's potentially brutal on a shared system! I hope it's controlled > by an option, or that you do this only in something you're writing for > yourself alone.
I'm thinking of a dedicated system here and exploiting the available CPU resources as efficiently as possible. > There are other reasons for forking per connection, though, such as > state cleanup. If we are talking about a handful of connections, a single asyncio process will be all you need (and will be gentle to other users of the shared system). When your server has to deal with thousands of simultaneous connections, spawning a process for each connection is probably not the optimal approach. It is precisely the scalability issues that caused Windows and Java go back to event-driven processing (that was prevalent in GUI design from the get-go). A company I used to work for was bitten badly by the multithreaded classic Java I/O, and a NIO overhaul was required when the connection count went to 500 and beyond. Marko -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
