> > I haven't tried getting the SciPy stack running with PyParallel yet.
That would be essential for my use. I would assume a lot of potential PyParallel users are in the same boat. Thanks for the info about PyPy limits. You have a really interesting project. -- Gary Robinson gary...@me.com http://www.garyrobinson.net > On Sep 9, 2015, at 7:02 PM, Trent Nelson <tr...@snakebite.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 04:52:39PM -0400, Gary Robinson wrote: >> I’m going to seriously consider installing Windows or using a >> dedicated hosted windows box next time I have this problem so that I >> can try your solution. It does seem pretty ideal, although the STM >> branch of PyPy (using http://codespeak.net/execnet/ to access SciPy) >> might also work at this point. > > I'm not sure how up-to-date this is: > > http://pypy.readthedocs.org/en/latest/stm.html > > But it sounds like there's a 1.5GB memory limit (or maybe 2.5GB now, I > just peaked at core.h linked in that page) and a 4-core segment limit. > > PyParallel has no memory limit (although it actually does have support > for throttling back memory pressure by not accepting new connections > when the system hits 90% physical memory used) and no core limit, and it > scales linearly with cores+concurrency. > > PyPy-STM and PyParallel are both pretty bleeding edge and experimental > though so I'm sure we both crash as much as each other when exercised > outside of our comfort zones :-) > > I haven't tried getting the SciPy stack running with PyParallel yet. > > Trent. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
