sturlamolden sturlamol...@yahoo.no (s) wrote:
s On 25 Aug, 01:26, Piet van Oostrum p...@cs.uu.nl wrote:
That's because it doesn't use copy-on-write. Thereby losing most of its
advantages. I don't know SUA, but I have vaguely heard about it.
s SUA is a version of UNIX hidden inside Windows
On 25 Aug, 13:33, Piet van Oostrum p...@cs.uu.nl wrote:
I have heard about that also, but is there a Python implementation that
uses this? (Just curious, I am not using Windows.)
On Windows we have three different versions of Python 2.6:
* Python 2.6 for Win32/64 (from python.org) does not
Dennis Lee Bieber wlfr...@ix.netcom.com (DLB) wrote:
DLB On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:14:17 -0700, John Nagle na...@animats.com
DLB declaimed the following in gmane.comp.python.general:
Multiple Python processes can run concurrently, but each process
has a copy of the entire Python system, so the
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:14:17 -0700, John Nagle na...@animats.com
declaimed the following in gmane.comp.python.general:
Multiple Python processes can run concurrently, but each process
has a copy of the entire Python system, so the memory and cache footprints
Dave Angel da...@ieee.org (DA) wrote:
DA Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:14:17 -0700, John Nagle na...@animats.com
declaimed the following in gmane.comp.python.general:
Multiple Python processes can run concurrently, but each process
has a copy of the entire Python
On 18 Aug, 22:10, Derek Martin c...@pizzashack.org wrote:
I have some simple threaded code... If I run this
with an arg of 1 (start one thread), it pegs one cpu, as I would
expect. If I run it with an arg of 2 (start 2 threads), it uses both
CPUs, but utilization of both is less than 50%.
On 24 Aug, 13:21, Piet van Oostrum p...@cs.uu.nl wrote:
But os.fork() is not available on Windows. And I guess refcounts et al.
will soon destroy the sharing.
Well, there is os.fork in Cygwin and SUA (SUA is the Unix subsytem in
Windows Vista Professional). Cygwin's fork is a bit sluggish.
sturlamolden sturlamol...@yahoo.no (s) wrote:
s On 24 Aug, 13:21, Piet van Oostrum p...@cs.uu.nl wrote:
But os.fork() is not available on Windows. And I guess refcounts et al.
will soon destroy the sharing.
s Well, there is os.fork in Cygwin and SUA (SUA is the Unix subsytem in
s Windows
On 25 Aug, 01:26, Piet van Oostrum p...@cs.uu.nl wrote:
That's because it doesn't use copy-on-write. Thereby losing most of its
advantages. I don't know SUA, but I have vaguely heard about it.
SUA is a version of UNIX hidden inside Windows Vista and Windows 7
(except in Home and Home Premium),
Jan Kaliszewski wrote:
18-08-2009 o 22:10:15 Derek Martin c...@pizzashack.org wrote:
I have some simple threaded code... If I run this
with an arg of 1 (start one thread), it pegs one cpu, as I would
expect. If I run it with an arg of 2 (start 2 threads), it uses both
CPUs, but utilization
On Aug 18, 4:58 pm, birdsong david.birds...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 18, 3:18 pm, Derek Martin c...@pizzashack.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:10:15PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
I have some simple threaded code... If I run this
with an arg of 1 (start one thread), it pegs one
On Aug 18, 1:10 pm, Derek Martin c...@pizzashack.org wrote:
I have some simple threaded code... If I run this
with an arg of 1 (start one thread), it pegs one cpu, as I would
expect. If I run it with an arg of 2 (start 2 threads), it uses both
CPUs, but utilization of both is less than 50%.
On Aug 18, 3:18 pm, Derek Martin c...@pizzashack.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:10:15PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
I have some simple threaded code... If I run this
with an arg of 1 (start one thread), it pegs one cpu, as I would
expect. If I run it with an arg of 2 (start 2
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 21:02 +0100, Christian Heimes wrote:
The module was renamed to _thread to stop people from using it directly.
The extension module is the interface to some low level types and
functions. Especially the usage of thread.start_new_thread is
problematic, since it bypasses
On Feb 9, 7:34 am, Tim Wintle tim.win...@teamrubber.com wrote:
Thanks for both replies,
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 15:59 +0100, Christian Heimes wrote:
You shouldn't use the thread module directly. It's not meant to be used
by a user. Please stick to the threading module. You won't notice a
Hi,
This is my first post here - google hasn't helped much but sorry if this
has been asked before.
I've been wondering about some of the technicalities of locks in python
(2.4 and 2.5 mainly).
I'm using the old thread module as (1) I prefer the methods and (2) It
should be a tiny bit faster.
On Feb 9, 2:47 pm, Tim Wintle tim.win...@teamrubber.com wrote:
Hi,
This is my first post here - google hasn't helped much but sorry if this
has been asked before.
I've been wondering about some of the technicalities of locks in python
(2.4 and 2.5 mainly).
I'm using the old thread module
Tim Wintle schrieb:
Hi,
This is my first post here - google hasn't helped much but sorry if this
has been asked before.
I've been wondering about some of the technicalities of locks in python
(2.4 and 2.5 mainly).
I'm using the old thread module as (1) I prefer the methods and (2) It
Thanks for both replies,
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 15:59 +0100, Christian Heimes wrote:
You shouldn't use the thread module directly. It's not meant to be used
by a user. Please stick to the threading module. You won't notice a
slowdown, trust me :)
I'm aware that thread is being renamed to
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:34:02 +, Tim Wintle tim.win...@teamrubber.com
wrote:
Thanks for both replies,
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 15:59 +0100, Christian Heimes wrote:
You shouldn't use the thread module directly. It's not meant to be used
by a user. Please stick to the threading module. You
Tim Wintle schrieb:
Thanks for both replies,
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 15:59 +0100, Christian Heimes wrote:
You shouldn't use the thread module directly. It's not meant to be used
by a user. Please stick to the threading module. You won't notice a
slowdown, trust me :)
I'm aware that thread is
On Feb 10, 10:26 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am new to threading and python. Currently I am working on a GUI app
that will be a frontend to CLI client.
I want to invoke a method of the class from GUI and run it in the
thread. That works well, the problems is I dont know how can I stop
I am new to threading and python. Currently I am working on a GUI app
that will be a frontend to CLI client.
I want to invoke a method of the class from GUI and run it in the
thread. That works well, the problems is I dont know how can I stop
this operation, thread if the user would like to
On 2006-08-04 04:22:59, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
Rather than downloading and zipping in the same thread, you could run
multiple threads like you're doing that only download files, and one
zip-it-all-up thread. After downloading a file, the download threads
place a
Carl Banks wrote:
Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
Carl Banks wrote:
Then change the zipping part of download_from_web to acquire and
release this lock; do zipfile operations only between them.
ziplock.acquire()
try:
do_all_zipfile_stuff_here()
finally:
ziplock.release()
I hope while
Bryan Olson on Saturday 05 Aug 2006 13:31 wrote:
Exactly. Only one thread can hold a lock at a time.
In the code above, a form called a critical section, we might
think of a thread as holding the lock when it is between the
acquire() and release(). But that's not really how Python's
locks
Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
[...]
I noticed that even though while one thread acquires the lock, the other
threads
don't respect the lock. In fact they just go ahead and execute the statements
within the lock acquire statement. With this behavior, I'm ending up having a
partially corrupted zip
Bryan Olson on Saturday 05 Aug 2006 23:56 wrote:
You don't want ziplock = threading.Lock() in the body of
the function. It creates a new and different lock on every
execution. Your threads are all acquiring different locks.
To coordinate your threads, they need to be using the same
lock.
Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
Bryan Olson on Saturday 05 Aug 2006 23:56 wrote:
You don't want ziplock = threading.Lock() in the body of
the function. It creates a new and different lock on every
execution. Your threads are all acquiring different locks.
To coordinate your threads, they need
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
Rather than downloading and zipping in the same thread, you could run
multiple threads like you're doing that only download files, and one
zip-it-all-up thread. After downloading a file, the download threads place
a message in a queue that indicates the file they have
Carl Banks wrote:
If you have multiple threads trying to access the same ZIP file at the
same time, whether or not they use the same ZipFile object, you'll have
trouble. You'd have to change download_from_web to protect against
simultaneous use. A simple lock should suffice. Create the
Simon Forman wrote:
One other question I had,
If my user passes the --zip option, download_from_web() internally (when the
download is successful) zips the downloaded data to a zip file. Since in
case
of threading there'll be multiple threads, and say if one of the thread
completes 2
Simon Forman wrote:
The other threads will just take the next request from the Queue and
process it. They won't care what the one thread is doing,
downloading, zipping, whatever.
As I mentioned in my previous post, the other threads will also have to
go through the same zip the file if the
Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
Simon Forman wrote:
One other question I had,
If my user passes the --zip option, download_from_web() internally (when
the
download is successful) zips the downloaded data to a zip file. Since in
case
of threading there'll be multiple threads, and say
On 2006-08-03 08:49:45, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
I implemented it but am seeing some issues.
If I use a single thread, all files are zipped to the archive.
Obviously this has to work.
If threads are 2 or 3 or 4 in numbers, some of the files don't show up
in the archive.
What would a
Hi,
I have this following situation:
#INFO: Thread Support
# Will require more design thoughts
from Queue import Queue
from threading import Thread, currentThread
NUMTHREADS = variables.options.num_of_threads
def run(request,
Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
Hi,
I have this following situation:
#INFO: Thread Support
# Will require more design thoughts
from Queue import Queue
from threading import Thread, currentThread
NUMTHREADS = variables.options.num_of_threads
def
Duncan Booth on Thursday 27 Jul 2006 17:17 wrote:
What you want is to use a pool of threads so that you can configure how
many requests are issued at a time (you don't want to try to issue 100
requests all in parallel). You can communicate with the threads through a
Queue.
Thanks to both
And people, Is there any documentation on Python Threads or Threads in general.
It'd be of great help to really understand.
Ritesh
Ritesh Raj Sarraf on Thursday 27 Jul 2006 16:37 wrote:
Is this the correct way of threading applications ?
This is the first time I'd be doing threading. So was
Simon Forman on Thursday 27 Jul 2006 22:47 wrote:
def run(request, response, func=dummy_func):
'''
Get items from the request Queue, process them
with func(), put the results along with the
Thread's name into the response Queue.
Stop running once an item is None.
'''
name =
Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
I'd like to put my understanding over here and would be happy if people can
correct me at places.
ok :-)
So here it goes:
Firstly the code initializes the number of threads. Then it moves on to
initializing requestQueue() and responseQueue().
Then it moves on to
Hi,
I have some basic doubts about thread.
I have a list which has items in it which need to be downloaded from
the internet.
Let's say list is:
list_items[] which has 100 items in it.
I have a function download_from_web() which does the work of
downloading the items from the web. It does
Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
I'm planning to implement threads in my application so that multiple
items can be downloaded concurrently. I want the thread option to be
user-defined.
Looking at the documentation of threads (Core Python Programming), I've
noticed that all threads are executed a
Duncan,
I couldn't make out much from the code.
Instead this is what I did.
threads = []
nloops = range(len(lRawData))
for i in nloops:
(sUrl, sFile, download_size, checksum) =
stripper(lRawData[i])
t = threading.Thread(target=download_from_web,
Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
Duncan,
I couldn't make out much from the code.
Please, try again to understand Duncan's code. It's much better than
what you did.
Instead this is what I did.
threads = []
nloops = range(len(lRawData))
for i in nloops:
(sUrl, sFile,
Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
Duncan,
I couldn't make out much from the code.
Instead this is what I did.
threads = []
nloops = range(len(lRawData))
for i in nloops:
(sUrl, sFile, download_size, checksum) =
stripper(lRawData[i])
t =
Simon Forman wrote:
If you need help understanding it please ask questions. I, for one,
would be happy to comment it for you to explain how it works. It's so
nice and elegant that I've already cut-and-pasted it into my own
notebook of cool useful python patterns to use in the future.
Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
[snip]
for item in list_items:
download_from_web(item)
This way, one items is downloaded at a time.
I'm planning to implement threads in my application so that multiple
items can be downloaded concurrently. I want the thread option to be
user-defined.
[snip]
Duncan Booth wrote:
Simon Forman wrote:
If you need help understanding it please ask questions. I, for one,
would be happy to comment it for you to explain how it works. It's so
nice and elegant that I've already cut-and-pasted it into my own
notebook of cool useful python patterns to
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Kent Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
D wrote:
My question is, how would I go
about creating the thread? I have seen examples that used classes, and
other examples that just called one thread start command - when should
you use one over another?
For simple use
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz)
wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Kent Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
D wrote:
My question is, how would I go
about creating the thread? I have seen examples that used classes, and
other examples that just called one thread
Just napisał(a):
I always felt that subclassing Thread is very unpythonic. It seems like
an unfortunate leftover Javaism (much of threading.py was inspired by
Java, but I don't need to tell you that). If I need some state, I create
my own class, with a reference to the Thread object if
I have a client application that I want (behind the scenes) to check
and make sure a remote host is up (i.e. by ping or TCP connect). I'm
assuming that, since I want this to go on unknowingly to the user,
that I would put this in a thread. My question is, how would I go
about creating the
On 2006-02-28, D [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a client application that I want (behind the scenes) to check
and make sure a remote host is up (i.e. by ping or TCP connect). I'm
assuming that, since I want this to go on unknowingly to the user,
that I would put this in a thread.
Probably.
Em Ter, 2006-02-28 às 20:24 +, Grant Edwards escreveu:
I have seen examples that used classes, and other examples
that just called one thread start command - when should you
use one over another?
I'm not sure what you mean by use classes vs. calling a
thread start command. My
Thanks, Grant. I apologize for not being clear on what I meant by
using classes. This is an example of what I was referring to:
http://www.wellho.net/solutions/python-python-threads-a-first-example.html
See the second (threaded) example.
Doug
--
On 2006-02-28, D [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks, Grant. I apologize for not being clear on what I
meant by using classes. This is an example of what I was
referring to:
http://www.wellho.net/solutions/python-python-threads-a-first-example.html
Ah, I see. I had forgotten that people
Em Ter, 2006-02-28 às 20:38 +, Grant Edwards escreveu:
On 2006-02-28, D [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks, Grant. I apologize for not being clear on what I
meant by using classes. This is an example of what I was
referring to:
On 2006-02-28, Felipe Almeida Lessa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# He meant calling direct vs. subclassing. In your example you called
the Thread class directly, but you could have subclassed it.
Yup. I should have realized that.
# In your case, Edwards, I'd prefer subclassing because then
D wrote:
My question is, how would I go
about creating the thread? I have seen examples that used classes, and
other examples that just called one thread start command - when should
you use one over another?
For simple use it doesn't matter. Use a class when you want to add more
state or
Guys - I appreciate the clarification. So it looks like they used a
class for the ping thread because they were a) running multiple
instances of the thread concurrently and b) needing to keep track of
the state of each instance, correct? I believe that in my case, since
I will be just running
61 matches
Mail list logo
