On 21 April 2015 at 16:53, Paulo da Silva
wrote:
> On 21-04-2015 11:26, Dave Angel wrote:
>> On 04/20/2015 10:14 PM, Paulo da Silva wrote:
>>> I have program that generates about 100 relatively complex graphics and
>>> writes then to a pdf book.
>>> It takes a while!
>>> Is there any possibility o
On 21-04-2015 03:14, Paulo da Silva wrote:
> I have program that generates about 100 relatively complex graphics and
> writes then to a pdf book.
> It takes a while!
> Is there any possibility of using multiprocessing to build the graphics
> and then use several calls to savefig(), i.e. some kind o
On 04/21/2015 07:54 PM, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:12:53 +0100, Paulo da Silva
declaimed the following:
Yes. fork will do that. I have just looked at it and it is the same as
unix fork (module os). I am thinking of launching several forks that
will produce .png images an
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 03:14:09 +0100, Paulo da Silva wrote:
> I have program that generates about 100 relatively complex graphics and
> writes then to a pdf book.
> It takes a while!
> Is there any possibility of using multiprocessing to build the graphics
> and then use several calls to savefig(),
On 21-04-2015 16:58, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Paulo da Silva
> wrote:
>> Yes, I have 8 cores and the graphics' processes calculation are all
>> independent. The problem I have is that if there is any way to generate
>> independent figures in matplotlib. The logic se
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Paulo da Silva
wrote:
> Yes, I have 8 cores and the graphics' processes calculation are all
> independent. The problem I have is that if there is any way to generate
> independent figures in matplotlib. The logic seems to be build the
> graphic and save it. I was t
On 21-04-2015 11:26, Dave Angel wrote:
> On 04/20/2015 10:14 PM, Paulo da Silva wrote:
>> I have program that generates about 100 relatively complex graphics and
>> writes then to a pdf book.
>> It takes a while!
>> Is there any possibility of using multiprocessing to build the graphics
>> and then
On 04/20/2015 10:14 PM, Paulo da Silva wrote:
I have program that generates about 100 relatively complex graphics and
writes then to a pdf book.
It takes a while!
Is there any possibility of using multiprocessing to build the graphics
and then use several calls to savefig(), i.e. some kind of gra
On 30/01/15 23:25, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Sturla Molden :
Only a handful of POSIX functions are required to be "fork safe", i.e.
callable on each side of a fork without an exec.
That is a pretty surprising statement. Forking without an exec is a
routine way to do multiprocessing.
I understand
Sturla Molden :
> Only a handful of POSIX functions are required to be "fork safe", i.e.
> callable on each side of a fork without an exec.
That is a pretty surprising statement. Forking without an exec is a
routine way to do multiprocessing.
I understand there are things to consider, but all sy
Andres Riancho wrote:
> Spawn, and I took that from the multiprocessing 3 documentation, will
> create a new process without using fork().
> This means that no memory
> is shared between the MainProcess and the spawn'ed sub-process created
> by multiprocessing.
If you memory map a segment with
Skip Montanaro wrote:
> Can you explain what you see as the difference between "spawn" and "fork"
> in this context? Are you using Windows perhaps? I don't know anything
> obviously different between the two terms on Unix systems.
spawn is fork + exec.
Only a handful of POSIX functions are requ
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Skip Montanaro
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Andres Riancho
> wrote:
>>
>> The feature I'm specially interested in is the ability to spawn
>> processes [1] instead of forking, which is not present in the 2.7
>> version of the module.
>
>
> Can you ex
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Skip Montanaro
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Andres Riancho
> wrote:
>> The feature I'm specially interested in is the ability to spawn
>> processes [1] instead of forking, which is not present in the 2.7
>> version of the module.
>
> Can you explain
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Andres Riancho
wrote:
> The feature I'm specially interested in is the ability to spawn
> processes [1] instead of forking, which is not present in the 2.7
> version of the module.
>
Can you explain what you see as the difference between "spawn" and "fork"
in thi
On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:22 AM, Sheng wrote:
> Hi Philip,
>
> multiprocessing.Queue is used to transfer data between processes, how
> it could be helpful for solving my problem? Thanks!
I misunderstood -- I thought transferring data between processes *was* your
problem. If both of your functions
Hi Philip,
multiprocessing.Queue is used to transfer data between processes, how
it could be helpful for solving my problem? Thanks!
Sheng
On Mar 8, 6:34 pm, Philip Semanchuk wrote:
> On Mar 8, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Sheng wrote:
>
> > This looks like a tornado problem, but trust me, it is almost al
On 3/8/2011 3:34 PM, Philip Semanchuk wrote:
On Mar 8, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Sheng wrote:
This looks like a tornado problem, but trust me, it is almost all
about the mechanism of multiprocessing module.
[snip]
So the workflow is like this,
get() --> fork a subprocess to process the query re
On Mar 8, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Sheng wrote:
> This looks like a tornado problem, but trust me, it is almost all
> about the mechanism of multiprocessing module.
[snip]
> So the workflow is like this,
>
> get() --> fork a subprocess to process the query request in
> async_func() -> when async_fun
On Dec 15 2009, 10:56 am, makobu wrote:
> I have a function that makes two subprocess.Popen() calls on a file.
>
> I have 8 cores. I need 8 instances of that function running in
> parallel at any given time till all the files are worked on.
> Can the multiprocessing module do this? If so, whats th
In article <79854c42-b2af-4adb-8967-3dc5e4ac0...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
makobu wrote:
>
>I have a function that makes two subprocess.Popen() calls on a file.
>
>I have 8 cores. I need 8 instances of that function running in
>parallel at any given time till all the files are worked on.
>Ca
En Fri, 10 Apr 2009 06:46:47 -0300, Deepak Rokade
escribió:
Since this application is going to be commercial one I want to know at
this
stage if there are any known serious bugs (not limitations) in the
multiprocessing module?
Go to http://bugs.python.org/ click on Search on the left, and
dmitrey wrote:
> This doesn't work for
> costlyFunction2 = lambda x: 11
> as well; and it doesn't work for imap, apply_async as well (same
> error).
> So, isn't it a bug, or it can be somehow fixed?
> Thank you in advance, D.
It's not a bug but a limitation of the pickle protocol. Pickle can't
han
dmitrey wrote:
# THIS WORKS OK
from multiprocessing import Pool
N = 400
K = 800
processes = 2
def costlyFunction2(z):
r = 0
for k in xrange(1, K+2):
r += z ** (1 / k**1.5)
return r
class ABC:
def __init__(self): pass
def testParallel(self):
po = Pool(processe
On Feb 22, 12:52 pm, Joshua Judson Rosen wrote:
> Graham Dumpleton writes:
>
> > On Feb 21, 4:20 pm, Joshua Judson Rosen wrote:
> > > Jesse Noller writes:
>
> > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Graham Dumpleton
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Why is the multiprocessing module, ie., multiprocessi
Graham Dumpleton writes:
>
> On Feb 21, 4:20 pm, Joshua Judson Rosen wrote:
> > Jesse Noller writes:
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Graham Dumpleton
> > > wrote:
> > > > Why is the multiprocessing module, ie., multiprocessing/process.py, in
> > > > _bootstrap() doing:
> >
> > > >
On Feb 21, 4:20 pm, Joshua Judson Rosen wrote:
> Jesse Noller writes:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Graham Dumpleton
> > wrote:
> > > Why is the multiprocessing module, ie., multiprocessing/process.py, in
> > > _bootstrap() doing:
>
> > > os.close(sys.stdin.fileno())
>
> > > rather th
Jesse Noller writes:
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Graham Dumpleton
> wrote:
> > Why is the multiprocessing module, ie., multiprocessing/process.py, in
> > _bootstrap() doing:
> >
> > os.close(sys.stdin.fileno())
> >
> > rather than:
> >
> > sys.stdin.close()
> >
> > Technically it is f
On Feb 19, 1:16 pm, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Graham Dumpleton
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > Why is the multiprocessing module, ie., multiprocessing/process.py, in
> > _bootstrap() doing:
>
> > os.close(sys.stdin.fileno())
>
> > rather than:
>
> > sys.stdin.close()
>
> > Tech
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Graham Dumpleton
wrote:
> Why is the multiprocessing module, ie., multiprocessing/process.py, in
> _bootstrap() doing:
>
> os.close(sys.stdin.fileno())
>
> rather than:
>
> sys.stdin.close()
>
> Technically it is feasible that stdin could have been replaced with
sturlamolden wrote:
On Jun 5, 11:02 am, pataphor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is probably not very central to the main intention of your post,
but I see a terminology problem coming up here. It is possible for
python objects to share a reference to some other object. This has
nothing to do w
On Jun 5, 11:02 am, pataphor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is probably not very central to the main intention of your post,
> but I see a terminology problem coming up here. It is possible for
> python objects to share a reference to some other object. This has
> nothing to do with threads or
In article <877a5774-d3cc-49d3-bb64-5cab8505a419
@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> I don't see pyprocessing as a drop-in replacement for the threading
> module. Multi-threading and multi-processing code tend to be
> different, unless something like mutable objects in share
Christian Heimes wrote:
> Can you provide a C implementation that compiles under VS 2008? Python
> 2.6 and 3.0 are using my new VS 2008 build system and we have dropped
> support for 9x, ME and NT4. If you can provide us with an
> implementation we *might* consider using it.
You'd have to at leas
sturlamolden schrieb:
> There is a well known C++ implementation of cow-fork on Windows, which
> I have slightly modified and ported to C. But as the new WDK (Windows
> driver kit) headers are full of syntax errors, the compiler choke on
> it. :( I am seriously considering re-implementing the whole
On Jun 4, 11:29 pm, Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> tested the executable on Windows. COW (copy-on-write, for those still
> thinking that we're talking about dairy products) would be pretty
> desirable if it's feasible, though.
There is a well known C++ implementation of cow-fork on Wind
On 4 Jun, 20:06, sturlamolden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Even a non-COWfork
> would be preferred. I will strongly suggest something is done to add
> support for os.fork to Python on Windows. Either create a full cow
> fork using ZwCreateProces
37 matches
Mail list logo
