ma3mju wrote:
On 7 Aug, 16:02, MRAB wrote:
ma3mju wrote:
On 3 Aug, 09:36, ma3mju wrote:
On 2 Aug, 21:49, Piet van Oostrum wrote:
MRAB (M) wrote:
M> I wonder whether one of the workers is raising an exception, perhaps due
M> to lack of memory, when there are large number of jobs to proces
On 7 Aug, 16:02, MRAB wrote:
> ma3mju wrote:
> > On 3 Aug, 09:36, ma3mju wrote:
> >> On 2 Aug, 21:49, Piet van Oostrum wrote:
>
> MRAB (M) wrote:
> M> I wonder whether one of the workers is raising an exception, perhaps
> due
> M> to lack of memory, when there are large
ma3mju wrote:
On 3 Aug, 09:36, ma3mju wrote:
On 2 Aug, 21:49, Piet van Oostrum wrote:
MRAB (M) wrote:
M> I wonder whether one of the workers is raising an exception, perhaps due
M> to lack of memory, when there are large number of jobs to process.
But that wouldn't prevent the join. And y
On 3 Aug, 09:36, ma3mju wrote:
> On 2 Aug, 21:49, Piet van Oostrum wrote:
>
> > > MRAB (M) wrote:
> > >M> I wonder whether one of the workers is raising an exception, perhaps due
> > >M> to lack of memory, when there are large number of jobs to process.
>
> > But that wouldn't prevent the jo
On 3 Aug, 09:36, ma3mju wrote:
> On 2 Aug, 21:49, Piet van Oostrum wrote:
>
> > > MRAB (M) wrote:
> > >M> I wonder whether one of the workers is raising an exception, perhaps due
> > >M> to lack of memory, when there are large number of jobs to process.
>
> > But that wouldn't prevent the jo
On 2 Aug, 21:49, Piet van Oostrum wrote:
> > MRAB (M) wrote:
> >M> I wonder whether one of the workers is raising an exception, perhaps due
> >M> to lack of memory, when there are large number of jobs to process.
>
> But that wouldn't prevent the join. And you would probably get an
> exceptio
> MRAB (M) wrote:
>M> I wonder whether one of the workers is raising an exception, perhaps due
>M> to lack of memory, when there are large number of jobs to process.
But that wouldn't prevent the join. And you would probably get an
exception traceback printed.
I wonder if something fishy is
ma3mju wrote:
On 2 Aug, 15:48, ma3mju wrote:
On 31 July, 11:34, MRAB wrote:
ma3mju wrote:
Hi all,
I'm having trouble with multiprocessing I'm using it to speed up some
simulations, I find for large queues when the process reaches the
poison pill it does not exit whereas for smaller queues
On 2 Aug, 15:48, ma3mju wrote:
> On 31 July, 11:34, MRAB wrote:
>
>
>
> > ma3mju wrote:
> > > Hi all,
>
> > > I'm having trouble with multiprocessing I'm using it to speed up some
> > > simulations, I find for large queues when the process reaches the
> > > poison pill it does not exit whereas fo
On 31 July, 11:34, MRAB wrote:
> ma3mju wrote:
> > Hi all,
>
> > I'm having trouble with multiprocessing I'm using it to speed up some
> > simulations, I find for large queues when the process reaches the
> > poison pill it does not exit whereas for smaller queues it works
> > without any problems
On 31 July, 11:27, Piet van Oostrum wrote:
> > ma3mju (m) wrote:
> >m> Hi all,
> >m> I'm having trouble with multiprocessing I'm using it to speed up some
> >m> simulations, I find for large queues when the process reaches the
> >m> poison pill it does not exit whereas for smaller queues it w
ma3mju wrote:
Hi all,
I'm having trouble with multiprocessing I'm using it to speed up some
simulations, I find for large queues when the process reaches the
poison pill it does not exit whereas for smaller queues it works
without any problems. Has anyone else had this trouble? Can anyone
tell m
> ma3mju (m) wrote:
>m> Hi all,
>m> I'm having trouble with multiprocessing I'm using it to speed up some
>m> simulations, I find for large queues when the process reaches the
>m> poison pill it does not exit whereas for smaller queues it works
>m> without any problems. Has anyone else had th
Sorry
###fortran
call###
is meant to be
###fortran call###
Matt
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
14 matches
Mail list logo
