Please let me know if that is okay. On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 7:46 PM <2qdxy4rzwzuui...@potatochowder.com> wrote:
> On 2022-08-09 at 17:04:51 +0000, > "Schachner, Joseph (US)" <joseph.schach...@teledyne.com> wrote: > > > Why would this application *require* parallel programming? This could > > be done in one, single thread program. Call time to get time and save > > it as start_time. Keep a count of the number of 6 hour intervals, > > initialize it to 0. > > In theory, you are correct. > > In practice, [stuff] happens. What if your program crashes? Or the > computer crashes? Or there's a Python update? Or an OS update? Where > does all that pending data go, and how will you recover it after you've > addressed whatever happened? ¹ > > OTOH, once you start writing the pending data to a file, then it's an > extremely simple leap to multiple programs (rather than multiple > threads) for all kinds of good reasons. > > ¹ FWIW, I used to develop highly available systems, such as telephone > switches, which allow [stuff] to happen, and yet continue to function. > It's pretty cool to yank a board (yes, physically remove it, without > warning) from the system without [apparently] disrupting anything. Such > systems also allow for hardware, OS, and application upgrades, too > (IIRC, we were allowed a handful of seconds of downtime per year to meet > our availability requirements). That said, designing and building such > a system for the sakes of simplicity and convenience of the application > we're talking about here would make a pretty good definition of > "overkill." > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
