[issue4194] default subprocess.Popen buffer size

2010-09-05 Thread Antoine Pitrou
Antoine Pitrou added the comment: The subprocess doc now has a note about buffering and performance issues, closing. -- resolution: -> out of date status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___

[issue4194] default subprocess.Popen buffer size

2010-05-20 Thread Skip Montanaro
Changes by Skip Montanaro : -- nosy: -skip.montanaro ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mai

[issue4194] default subprocess.Popen buffer size

2010-02-06 Thread Shashwat Anand
Shashwat Anand added the comment: Tested it on mac OSX (Snow leopard) Shashwat-Anands-MacBook-Pro:Desktop l0nwlf$ python2.5 popentest.py time with os.popen : 0.0342061519623 time with subprocess.Popen : 0.0421631336212 Shashwat-Anands-MacBook-Pro:Desktop l0nwlf$ python2.6 --version Python 2.

[issue4194] default subprocess.Popen buffer size

2010-01-19 Thread Skip Montanaro
Skip Montanaro added the comment: Looks good to me: tmp% python3.1 popentest.py time with os.popen : 0.035565 time with subprocess.Popen : 0.031796 tmp% python3.2 popentest.py time with os.popen : 0.03501 time with subprocess.Popen : 0.031168 tmp% python3.1 Python 3.1.1+ (release31-maint:77

[issue4194] default subprocess.Popen buffer size

2010-01-19 Thread Antoine Pitrou
Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Can someone check if this still applies to Python 3.1/3.2? By the way, I see no reason not to buffer at least the subprocess's stdout and stderr streams. -- versions: -Python 2.4, Python 2.5, Python 2.6, Python 3.0 ___

[issue4194] default subprocess.Popen buffer size

2010-01-19 Thread Thomas Guettler
Changes by Thomas Guettler : -- nosy: +guettli ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.pytho

[issue4194] default subprocess.Popen buffer size

2009-03-17 Thread STINNER Victor
STINNER Victor added the comment: The strange performance between bytes/text (BufferedReader/TextIOWrapper) may be explained by the issue #5502. -- ___ Python tracker ___ __

[issue4194] default subprocess.Popen buffer size

2009-03-17 Thread Antoine Pitrou
Antoine Pitrou added the comment: I just wanna say that buffering can be a problem when writing, but not when reading. If you read() from a buffered file, you still get the available contents immediately, you don't have to wait for the buffer to be full. -- nosy: +pitrou __

[issue4194] default subprocess.Popen buffer size

2008-11-24 Thread STINNER Victor
STINNER Victor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > Victor> About Python3, os.popen() is more than two times faster (...) > Victor> The difference is just this instruction: > Victor>stdout = io.TextIOWrapper(stdout) > > This is a known issue. The default for bufsize in os.popen is -1 (fu

[issue4194] default subprocess.Popen buffer size

2008-11-24 Thread Skip Montanaro
Skip Montanaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Victor> About Python3, os.popen() is more than two times faster (0.20 Victor> sec vs 0.50 sec) than subprocess.Popen()! It's amazing because Victor> popen() opens the standard output as unicode file whereas Victor> Popen() creates

[issue4194] default subprocess.Popen buffer size

2008-11-23 Thread Gregory P. Smith
Gregory P. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: If anything for 2.6 lets just highlight this in the docs and mention that bufsize needs to be set to non-zero for good performance on many platforms such as Mac OS X and Solaris. We can consider changing the default for 2.7/3.1. 3.x having

[issue4194] default subprocess.Popen buffer size

2008-11-23 Thread STINNER Victor
STINNER Victor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Summary of unchanged Python (2.4 .. 2.7): * Mac: subprocess is 25 .. 50 times SLOWER than os.popen * Solaris : subprocess is 13 times SLOWER than os.popen * Windows XP : subprocess is 1.5 times FASTER than os.popen * Linux : (results are v

[issue4194] default subprocess.Popen buffer size

2008-11-23 Thread STINNER Victor
STINNER Victor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: About Python3, os.popen() is more than two times faster (0.20 sec vs 0.50 sec) than subprocess.Popen()! It's amazing because popen() opens the standard output as unicode file whereas Popen() creates a binary file! Another funny thing: os.po

[issue4194] default subprocess.Popen buffer size

2008-11-03 Thread STINNER Victor
Changes by STINNER Victor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: -- title: Miserable subprocess.Popen performance -> default subprocess.Popen buffer size ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___