Ben Finney a écrit :
(snip)
> One common response to that is "Processes are expensive on Win32". My
> response to that is that if you're programming on Win32 and expecting
> the application to scale well, you already have problems that must
> first be addressed that are far more fundamental than th
"Paul Rubin" <"http://phr.cx"@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| It does sound like removing the GIL from CPython would have very high
| costs in more than one area. Is my hope that Python will transition
| from CPython to PyPy overoptimistic?
I presume you mean 'will the
"Paul Rubin" <"http://phr.cx"@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| funding into PyPy development, since I think I saw something about the
| EU funding being interrupted.
As far as I know, the project was completed and promised funds paid. But I
don't know of any major foll
"Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The compute intensive stuff (image rendering and crunching) has
> > already had most of those skerricks pulled out. It is written in C
> > and assembler
> That means that this part is also unaffected by the GIL.
Right, it was a counterexample against
"Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. Python has threads, and they're wrappers around true OS level
> system threads. What the GIL does is prevent *Python* code in those
> threads from running concurrently.
Well, C libraries can release the GIL if they are written for thread
safety, but
On 20 Sep 2007 07:43:18 -0700, Paul Rubin
<"http://phr.cx"@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That's why your "comparatively wimpy site" preferred to throw extra web
> > servers at the job of serving webpages rather than investing in smarter,
> > harder-working
Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's why your "comparatively wimpy site" preferred to throw extra web
> servers at the job of serving webpages rather than investing in smarter,
> harder-working programmers to pull the last skerricks of performance out
> of the hardware you alread
On 2007-09-20, TheFlyingDutchman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is the only point in getting rid of the GIL to allow multi-threaded
> applications?
That's the main point.
> Can't multiple threads also provide a performance boost versus
> multiple processes on a single-core machine?
That depends o
On 9/19/07, TheFlyingDutchman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 5:08 pm, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> This is a little confusing because google groups does not show your
> original post (not uncommon for them to lose a pos
TheFlyingDutchman a écrit :
(snip)
> I am confused about the benefits/disadvantages of the "GIL removal".
> Is it correct that the GIL is preventing CPython from having threads?
>
> Is it correct that the only issue with the GIL is the prevention of
> being able to do multi-threading?
http://doc
On 20 Sep, 00:59, TheFlyingDutchman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Paul it's a pleasure to see that you are not entirely against
> complaints.
Well, it seems to me that I'm usually the one making them. ;-)
> The very fastest Intel processor of the last 1990's that I found came
> out in October 19
"Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think a better question is, how much faster/slower would Stein's code
> be on today's processors, versus CPython being hand-simulated in a giant
> virtual machine made of clockwork?
This obviously depends on whether or not the clockwork is o
2
On Sep 19, 5:08 pm, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>
> This assumes that comparing versions of 1.5 is still relevant. As far as I
> know, his patch has not been maintained to apply against current Python.
> This tells me that no
On Sep 19, 5:08 pm, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
This is a little confusing because google groups does not show your
original post (not uncommon for them to lose a post in a thread - but
somehow still reflect the fact that it exists
On Sep 19, 8:54 pm, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:14:39 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote:
>
> > etc. is at best an excuse for laziness.
>
> What are you doing about solving the problem? Apart from standing on the
> side-lines calling out "Get yer la
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:14:39 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote:
> We get cpu speed increases now through parallelism, not mhz. Intel and
> AMD both have 4-core cpu's now and Intel has a 16-core chip coming.
> Python is at a serious disadvantage compared with other languages if the
> other languages keep u
TheFlyingDutchman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The very fastest Intel processor of the last 1990's that I found came
> out in October 1999 and had a speed around 783Mhz. Current fastest
> processors are something like 3.74 Ghz, with larger caches. Memory is
> also faster and larger. It appears tha
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:59:59 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
> Paul it's a pleasure to see that you are not entirely against
> complaints.
I'm not against complaints either, so long as they are well-thought out.
I've made a few of my own over the years, some of which may have been
less well-tho
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:07:48 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
> On Sep 19, 8:51 am, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:09:26 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
>> > How much faster/slower would Greg Stein's code be on today's
>> > processors versu
"Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| "TheFlyingDutchman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Since Guido wrote that, there have been put forth more ideas and interest
| and promises of efforts to remove or revise the GIL or do
On Sep 19, 3:41 pm, Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19 Sep, 03:09, TheFlyingDutchman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > How much faster/slower would Greg Stein's code be on today's
> > processors versus CPython running on the processors of the late
> > 1990's? And if you decide to ans
On 19 Sep, 03:09, TheFlyingDutchman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How much faster/slower would Greg Stein's code be on today's
> processors versus CPython running on the processors of the late
> 1990's? And if you decide to answer, please add a true/false response
> to this statement - "CPython in
On Sep 19, 8:51 am, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:09:26 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
> > How much faster/slower would Greg Stein's code be on today's processors
> > versus CPython running on the processors of the late 1990's?
>
> I think a
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:09:26 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
> How much faster/slower would Greg Stein's code be on today's processors
> versus CPython running on the processors of the late 1990's?
I think a better question is, how much faster/slower would Stein's code
be on today's processors,
On 2007-09-19, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:09:26 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
>
>> How much faster/slower would Greg Stein's code be on today's
>> processors versus CPython running on the processors of the
>> late 1990's?
>
> I think a better question is,
"TheFlyingDutchman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| On Sep 2, 5:38 pm, "Eduardo O. Padoan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| wrote:
| > > No.http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=211430
| >
| > Ops, I
meant:http://www.artima.com/forums/threaded.jsp?forum=106&thread=
On Sep 2, 5:38 pm, "Eduardo O. Padoan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > No.http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=211430
>
> Ops, I meant:http://www.artima.com/forums/threaded.jsp?forum=106&thread=211200
>
> --http://www.advogato.org/person/eopadoan/
> Bookmarks:http://del.icio.us/edcrypt
I was wondering (and maybe i still do) about this GIL "problem". I am
relatively new to Python (less than a year) and when i started to
think about it i said: "Oh, this IS a problem". But when i dig a
little more, i found that "Ah, maybe it isn't".
I strongly believe that the best usage of multiple
I was wondering (and maybe i still do) about this GIL "problem". I am
relatively new to Python (less than a year) and when i started to
think about it i said: "Oh, this IS a problem". But when i dig a
little more, i found that "Ah, maybe it isn't".
I strongly believe that the best usage of multiple
I was wondering (and maybe i still do) about this GIL "problem". I am
relatively new to Python (less than a year) and when i started to
think about it i said: "Oh, this IS a problem". But when i dig a
little more, i found that "Ah, maybe it isn't".
I strongly believe that the best usage of multiple
Michele Simionato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sep 3, 2:21 am, llothar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm afraid that the GIL is killing the usefullness of python for
> > some types of applications now where 4,8 oder 64 threads on a chip
> > are here or comming soon.
>
> This is FAQ. You will
On Sep 3, 9:15 am, Michele Simionato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2:21 am, llothar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My personal opinion (and I am not the only one in the Python
> community) is that
> if you want to scale the way to go is to use processes, not threads,
> so removing the GIL
On Sep 3, 2:21 am, llothar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm afraid that the GIL is killing the usefullness of python for some
> types of applications now where 4,8 oder 64 threads on a chip are here
> or comming soon.
>
> What is the status about that for the future of python?
This is FAQ. You wil
On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 17:21 -0700, llothar wrote:
> I'm afraid that the GIL is killing the usefullness of python for some
> types of applications now where 4,8 oder 64 threads on a chip are here
> or comming soon.
>
> What is the status about that for the future of python?
The GIL is an implement
On Sep 2, 11:16 pm, llothar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3 Sep., 07:38, "Eduardo O. Padoan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > > No.http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=211430
>
> > Ops, I
> > meant:http://www.artima.com/forums/threaded.jsp?forum=106&thread=211200
>
> Thanks. I whi
On 3 Sep., 07:38, "Eduardo O. Padoan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > No.http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=211430
>
> Ops, I meant:http://www.artima.com/forums/threaded.jsp?forum=106&thread=211200
>
Thanks. I whish there would be a project for rewritting the C
interpreter
to make it
> No. http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=211430
Ops, I meant:
http://www.artima.com/forums/threaded.jsp?forum=106&thread=211200
--
http://www.advogato.org/person/eopadoan/
Bookmarks: http://del.icio.us/edcrypt
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 9/2/07, llothar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm afraid that the GIL is killing the usefullness of python for some
> types of applications now where 4,8 oder 64 threads on a chip are here
> or comming soon.
>
> What is the status about that for the future of python?
>
> I know that at the moment
I'm afraid that the GIL is killing the usefullness of python for some
types of applications now where 4,8 oder 64 threads on a chip are here
or comming soon.
What is the status about that for the future of python?
I know that at the moment allmost nobody in the scripting world has
solved this pro
39 matches
Mail list logo
