if not I will have to redesign my system to use 'subprocess'

Expanding on this, for students on the list... Having many worker host processes is not necessarily a bad thing.  It can be more programmer work, but it simplifies the parallelism in a way (e.g., "let the Linux kernel worry about it" :), and it potentially gives you better isolation and resilience for some kinds of defects (in native code used via FFI, in Racket code, and even in the suspiciously sturdy Racket VM/backend).

If appropriate for your application, you can also consider a worker pool, with a health metric, sometimes reusing workers to avoid process startup times, and sometimes retiring, and perhaps sometimes benching workers for an induced big GC if that makes sense compared to retiring&starting/unpooling, and maybe sometimes quarantining workers for debugging/dumps while keeping the system running.  You can also spread your workers across multiple hosts, not just CPUs/cores.

You can even use the worker pool to introduce new changes to a running system (being very rapid, or as an additional mechanism beyond normal testing for production), and do A/B performance/correctness of changes, and change rollback.

If your data to be communicated to/from a worker is relatively small and won't be a bottleneck, you can simply push it through the stdin and stdout of each process; otherwise, you can get judicious/clever with the many available host OS mechanisms.

(Students: Being able to get our hands dirty and engineer systems beyond a framework, when necessary, is one of the reasons we get CS/SE/EE/CE degrees and broad&deep experience, rather than only collect a binder full of Certified Currently-Popular JS Framework Technician certs.  Those oppressive student loans, and/or years of self-guided open source experience, might not be in vain. :)

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket 
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to