The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to
this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may
contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute o
"Paul Boddie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What makes all of the following not "Pythonic"...?
> http://wiki.python.org/moin/ParallelProcessing
I'd say mainly that they don't allow sharing data between processes
except through expensive IPC mechanisms involving system calls.
> I'm sure one could
On 8 Mar, 10:48, Bryan Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That doesn't really work in Python. There have been projects to
> allow Pythonic coordination of processes -- POSH had some good
> ideas -- but none have reached fruition.
What makes all of the following not "Pythonic"...?
http://wiki.py
sturlamolden wrote:
[...]
> If you want to utilize the computing power of multiple CPUs, you
> should use multiple processes instead of threads. On Python this is
> mandatory due to the GIL. In any other language it it highly
> recommended. The de-factor standard for parallel multiprocessing (MPI)
Carl J. Van Arsdall wrote:
> Not necessarily, if he's on a full duplex ethernet connection,
> then there is some parallelity he can take advantage of. He has
> upstream and downstream.
Partly agreed. There is one bus to the network device, and CPU
should be very much faster than the network devi
On Feb 9, 4:00 pm, "S.Mohideen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I am sorry if I sound foolish.
> Suppose I split my Net application code using parallel python into several
> processes based upon the number of CPU available. That means a single socket
> descriptor is distributed across all processes.
"S.Mohideen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Suppose I split my Net application code using parallel python into
> several processes based upon the number of CPU available. That means a
> single socket descriptor is distributed across all processes. Is
> parallelity can be acheived using the processes
the single socket multiplexed
across all the processes.. I haven't tried it yet - would like to have any
past experience related to this.
- Original Message -
From: "Carl J. Van Arsdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:44 PM
Subjec
Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
> [snip]
> What makes you think that'll be faster?
>
> Remember:
> - If you have one CPU, there is no parallelity at all.
> - If you do have multiple CPUs but only one network device, there is
> no parallel networking.
>
>
Not necessarily, if he's on a full duplex ethe
S.Mohideen wrote:
> There is a dictionary on which I store/read data values. I want to
> seperate the send and recv functionality on two different
> processes so that the parallel execution becomes fast.
What makes you think that'll be faster?
Remember:
- If you have one CPU, there is no paralle
S.Mohideen wrote:
> I would like to add my problem in this thread.
> I have a network application in Python which sends and recv using a single
> socket.
> There is a dictionary on which I store/read data values. I want to seperate
> the send and recv functionality on two different processes so t
Sergei Organov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: multithreading concept
> "sturlamolden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Feb 7, 6:17 pm, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>> MPI
Paul Boddie wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Take a look at the Python Wiki for information on parallel processing
> with Python:
>
> http://wiki.python.org/moin/ParallelProcessing
>
What a great resource! That one is book marked for sure. I was
wondering if anyone here had any opinions on some of the tec
On Feb 7, 8:03 pm, Sergei Organov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I fail to see how threads in general could perform worse than
> processes. I do understand that processes are inherently more
> safe/secure, but when it comes to speed I really can't imagine why it
> could happen that threads perform w
"sturlamolden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Feb 7, 6:17 pm, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> MPI does not use threads on SMPs because it performs worse than using
> multiple processes.
I fail to see how threads in general could perform worse than
processes. I do understand that pr
On Feb 7, 6:17 pm, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Multithread compute-bound programs on multiple CPUs are
> how you get heavy number-crunching work done on multiprocessors.
In the scientific community, heavy CPU-bound tasks are either
parallelized using MPI and/or written in Fortran
John Nagle wrote:
> sturlamolden wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 2:53 am, "S.Mohideen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> This has been discussed to death before. Win32 threads and pthreads
>> (which is what Python normally uses, depending on the platform) are
>> designed to stay idle most of the time. They are
sturlamolden wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2:53 am, "S.Mohideen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> This has been discussed to death before. Win32 threads and pthreads
> (which is what Python normally uses, depending on the platform) are
> designed to stay idle most of the time. They are therefore not a tool
> fo
On 7 Feb, 02:53, "S.Mohideen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Python is praised about - me too. But at one instance it fails. It fails to
> behave as a true multi-threaded application. That means utilizing all the
> CPUs parallely in the SMP efficiently stays as a dream for a Python
> Programmer.
T
On Feb 7, 2:53 am, "S.Mohideen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Python is praised about - me too. But at one instance it fails. It fails to
> behave as a true multi-threaded application. That means utilizing all the
> CPUs parallely in the SMP efficiently stays as a dream for a Python
> Programmer.
On Feb 7, 1:53 am, "S.Mohideen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> Python is praised about - me too. But at one instance it fails. It fails to
> behave as a true multi-threaded application. That means utilizing all the
> CPUs parallely in the SMP efficiently stays as a dream for a Python
>
Hi Folks,
Python is praised about - me too. But at one instance it fails. It fails to
behave as a true multi-threaded application. That means utilizing all the
CPUs parallely in the SMP efficiently stays as a dream for a Python
Programmer.
Discussion threads say its due to GIL - global interprete
22 matches
Mail list logo
