On 25 Aug, 13:33, Piet van Oostrum wrote:
> I have heard about that also, but is there a Python implementation that
> uses this? (Just curious, I am not using Windows.)
On Windows we have three different versions of Python 2.6:
* Python 2.6 for Win32/64 (from python.org) does not have os.fork.
> sturlamolden (s) wrote:
>s> On 25 Aug, 01:26, Piet van Oostrum wrote:
>>> That's because it doesn't use copy-on-write. Thereby losing most of its
>>> advantages. I don't know SUA, but I have vaguely heard about it.
>s> SUA is a version of UNIX hidden inside Windows Vista and Windows 7
>s>
On 25 Aug, 01:26, Piet van Oostrum wrote:
> That's because it doesn't use copy-on-write. Thereby losing most of its
> advantages. I don't know SUA, but I have vaguely heard about it.
SUA is a version of UNIX hidden inside Windows Vista and Windows 7
(except in Home and Home Premium), but very fe
> sturlamolden (s) wrote:
>s> On 24 Aug, 13:21, Piet van Oostrum wrote:
>>> But os.fork() is not available on Windows. And I guess refcounts et al.
>>> will soon destroy the sharing.
>s> Well, there is os.fork in Cygwin and SUA (SUA is the Unix subsytem in
>s> Windows Vista Professional). C
On 24 Aug, 13:21, Piet van Oostrum wrote:
> But os.fork() is not available on Windows. And I guess refcounts et al.
> will soon destroy the sharing.
Well, there is os.fork in Cygwin and SUA (SUA is the Unix subsytem in
Windows Vista Professional). Cygwin's fork is a bit sluggish.
Multiprocessin
On 18 Aug, 22:10, Derek Martin wrote:
> I have some simple threaded code... If I run this
> with an arg of 1 (start one thread), it pegs one cpu, as I would
> expect. If I run it with an arg of 2 (start 2 threads), it uses both
> CPUs, but utilization of both is less than 50%. Can anyone expla
> Dave Angel (DA) wrote:
>DA> Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:14:17 -0700, John Nagle
>>> declaimed the following in gmane.comp.python.general:
>>>
>>>
Multiple Python processes can run concurrently, but each process
has a copy of the entire Python system, so
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:14:17 -0700, John Nagle
declaimed the following in gmane.comp.python.general:
Multiple Python processes can run concurrently, but each process
has a copy of the entire Python system, so the memory and cache footprints are
far larger than
> Dennis Lee Bieber (DLB) wrote:
>DLB> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:14:17 -0700, John Nagle
>DLB> declaimed the following in gmane.comp.python.general:
>>> Multiple Python processes can run concurrently, but each process
>>> has a copy of the entire Python system, so the memory and cache footprin
Jan Kaliszewski wrote:
18-08-2009 o 22:10:15 Derek Martin wrote:
I have some simple threaded code... If I run this
with an arg of 1 (start one thread), it pegs one cpu, as I would
expect. If I run it with an arg of 2 (start 2 threads), it uses both
CPUs, but utilization of both is less than
On Aug 18, 4:58 pm, birdsong wrote:
> On Aug 18, 3:18 pm, Derek Martin wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:10:15PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > > I have some simple threaded code... If I run this
> > > with an arg of 1 (start one thread), it pegs one cpu, as I would
> > > expect. If I
On Aug 18, 3:18 pm, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:10:15PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > I have some simple threaded code... If I run this
> > with an arg of 1 (start one thread), it pegs one cpu, as I would
> > expect. If I run it with an arg of 2 (start 2 threads), it uses b
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:10:15PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> I have some simple threaded code... If I run this
> with an arg of 1 (start one thread), it pegs one cpu, as I would
> expect. If I run it with an arg of 2 (start 2 threads), it uses both
> CPUs, but utilization of both is less than
18-08-2009 o 22:10:15 Derek Martin wrote:
I have some simple threaded code... If I run this
with an arg of 1 (start one thread), it pegs one cpu, as I would
expect. If I run it with an arg of 2 (start 2 threads), it uses both
CPUs, but utilization of both is less than 50%. Can anyone explain
On Aug 18, 1:10 pm, Derek Martin wrote:
> I have some simple threaded code... If I run this
> with an arg of 1 (start one thread), it pegs one cpu, as I would
> expect. If I run it with an arg of 2 (start 2 threads), it uses both
> CPUs, but utilization of both is less than 50%. Can anyone expl
I have some simple threaded code... If I run this
with an arg of 1 (start one thread), it pegs one cpu, as I would
expect. If I run it with an arg of 2 (start 2 threads), it uses both
CPUs, but utilization of both is less than 50%. Can anyone explain
why?
I do not pretend it's impeccable code
16 matches
Mail list logo
