Considering the activity of this thread, let me contribute what I see as
the most common "problem" for AOLserver and Tcl [exec] ...
Traditionally, fork() creates a copy of the process which invoked it,
which includes the memory allocated to that process. exec() overlays a
process with a new image
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 30, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Nathan Folkman wrote:
So the easy way to do this would be to exec from the nsproxy. Better
option might be to wrap the C API, although I'm not entirely sure
whether or not Imagemagick is truly thread-safe. Even if it is not,
you'd probabl
On Aug 30, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Nathan Folkman wrote:
So the easy way to do this would be to exec from the nsproxy.
Better option might be to wrap the C API, although I'm not entirely
sure whether or not Imagemagick is truly thread-safe. Even if it is
not, you'd probably still see better perf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 10:32, Nathan Folkman wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 30, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Nathan Folkman wrote:
What is it you are trying to exec?
From OpenACS we mostly just exec Imagemagick. I can't think of
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 10:32, Nathan Folkman wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Aug 30, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Nathan Folkman wrote:
> >> What is it you are trying to exec?
> >
> > From OpenACS we mostly just exec Imagemagick. I can't think of
> So the easy way to do this would be to exec f
> On Aug 30, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Nathan Folkman wrote:
>
>> What is it you are trying to exec?
>
> From OpenACS we mostly just exec Imagemagick. I can't think of
> anything else.
SQL*Plus and psql during installation or package install.
--
AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
To Remove yoursel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 30, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Nathan Folkman wrote:
What is it you are trying to exec?
From OpenACS we mostly just exec Imagemagick. I can't think of
anything else.
janine
--
AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 08:56, Nathan Folkman wrote:
> What is it you are trying to exec?
Nathan,
I've never had a problem with the Tcl command 'exec', which is why I wanted to
clairify this issue. My understanding is that Tcl exec would immediately call
exec, so maybe this isn't an issue f
On Aug 30, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Nathan Folkman wrote:
What is it you are trying to exec?
From OpenACS we mostly just exec Imagemagick. I can't think of
anything else.
janine
--
AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 20:29, Jeff Hobbs wrote:
You are correct that the main problem is in trying to fork when not
closely followed by exec*().
But with Tcl exec, you never call fork, screw around and then call exec*(), do
you? Is this an issue for C level
On 30.08.2006, at 18:02, Tom Jackson wrote:
But with Tcl exec, you never call fork, screw around and then call
exec*(), do
you? Is this an issue for C level tcl? Maybe the issue is that fork
and exec
are separate calls, and something unplanned could happen between
the two, and
pthread_atfor
Just saw this on Digg - pretty hip!
http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~anthony/graphics/imagick6/
- n
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An alternate strategy to exec'ing is to instead expose the low-level
C/C++ APIs as Tcl commands. If the code in question isn't thread safe,
you can create a library that you w
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 20:29, Jeff Hobbs wrote:
> You are correct that the main problem is in trying to fork when not
> closely followed by exec*().
But with Tcl exec, you never call fork, screw around and then call exec*(), do
you? Is this an issue for C level tcl? Maybe the issue is that for
Couple of general things about the Tcl threaded memory allocator (zippy)
that might help better explain what you are seeing...
- The Tcl memory allocator is a x2 allocator optimized for lock
avoidance between threads. This results in very high performance, but
comes at the cost of almost x3 ov
Hi ,
We are using aolserver 4.0.10 on an amd 64bit RHEL machine with 2GB
memory .
I am running three web server instances on the machine .
I noticed that with the passage of time the memory size of nsd process
grows .
I am not sure if its a memory leak or is it due to my configuration . I
An alternate strategy to exec'ing is to instead expose the low-level
C/C++ APIs as Tcl commands. If the code in question isn't thread safe,
you can create a library that you would load from the nsproxy, which if
you remember, is basically just a single-threaded tclsh that is fork'd
and exec'd f
I use exec for Image Magick, though not in a high-concurrency environment.
I wonder how Photo.net deals with this; I always understood they use Image
Magick this way. Maybe they did in the beginning and have now switched to
a module?
Does anyone have experience with using TclMagick inside AOLserve
17 matches
Mail list logo
