Op 2017-09-12, Thomas Jollans schreef :
> I'm not sure actually. Maybe someone else here can help. I have a hunch
> that on Windows the memory might not be shared in the same way that it
> would on Linux/Unix, since Windows simply doesn't have the same process
> forking capabilities as Unix.
`mul
On 12/09/17 10:21, gerlando.fala...@gmail.com wrote:
> Il giorno lunedì 11 settembre 2017 12:19:27 UTC+2, Thomas Jollans ha scritto:
>> On 2017-09-10 23:05, iurly wrote:
>>> As far as I'm concerned, I'm probably better off using double buffers to
>>> avoid this kind of issues.
>>> Thanks a lot for
Op 2017-09-12, gerlando.fala...@gmail.com schreef :
> Notice however how I'd have to create those Arrays dynamically in the
> producer thread. Would I then be able to pass them to the consumer by
> putting a reference in a queue?
Yes.
> I wouldn't want them to be pickled at all in that case, of
Il giorno lunedì 11 settembre 2017 12:19:27 UTC+2, Thomas Jollans ha scritto:
> On 2017-09-10 23:05, iurly wrote:
> > As far as I'm concerned, I'm probably better off using double buffers to
> > avoid this kind of issues.
> > Thanks a lot for your help!
> >
>
>
> That should work. Some other th
On 2017-09-10 23:05, iurly wrote:
> As far as I'm concerned, I'm probably better off using double buffers to
> avoid this kind of issues.
> Thanks a lot for your help!
>
That should work. Some other things to consider, if both processes are
on the same machine, are a series of memory-mapped fil
On 9/10/2017 5:05 PM, iurly wrote:
Il giorno domenica 10 settembre 2017 18:53:33 UTC+2, MRAB ha scritto:
I've had a quick look at the source code.
When an object is put into the queue, it's actually put into an internal
buffer (a deque), and then the method returns.
An internal thread works
Il giorno domenica 10 settembre 2017 18:53:33 UTC+2, MRAB ha scritto:
> On 2017-09-10 12:40, gerlando.fala...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> I suspect it's down to timing.
> >>
> >> What you're putting into the queue is a reference to the array, and it's
> >> only some time later that the array itse
On 2017-09-10 12:40, gerlando.fala...@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect it's down to timing.
What you're putting into the queue is a reference to the array, and it's
only some time later that the array itself is pickled and then sent (the
work being done in the 'background').
Modifying the array b
>
> I suspect it's down to timing.
>
> What you're putting into the queue is a reference to the array, and it's
> only some time later that the array itself is pickled and then sent (the
> work being done in the 'background').
>
> Modifying the array before (or while) it's actually being sent
On 2017-09-09 22:23, iurly wrote:
Hi,
I'm writing a multiprocessing program whose behavior I don't understand.
Essentially, the main process collects data and then passes it to a consumer
process.
For performance reasons I'm using a "static" circular buffer created through
array.array(), and t
Hi,
I'm writing a multiprocessing program whose behavior I don't understand.
Essentially, the main process collects data and then passes it to a consumer
process.
For performance reasons I'm using a "static" circular buffer created through
array.array(), and then passing it "as-is" by pushing it
11 matches
Mail list logo
