Timeline for Are Concurrency Abstractions Emulating UNIX Processes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 18, 2011 at 8:25 | comment | added | Bernd Elkemann | Thank you very much sir, i am willing to surrender that accept to anyone adding to this conversation. Looking forward to the views of others. | |
| Jul 18, 2011 at 5:23 | history | migrated | from stackoverflow.com (revisions) | ||
| Jul 17, 2011 at 21:59 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Jul 17, 2011 at 21:59 | comment | added | Louis | Given that this answer gives tons of info, I'm going to mark it as accepted. Stating an answer is 'accepted' in a subjective context feels a bit weird, but I feel it's justified :) | |
| Jul 17, 2011 at 20:07 | comment | added | Louis | @ninjalj: Sorry, a bit of a brain-dead moment from me there. I guess I was still unconsciously thinking about process pools. | |
| Jul 17, 2011 at 19:55 | comment | added | ninjalj | @Louis: each thread can run in a different core. | |
| Jul 17, 2011 at 18:59 | comment | added | Louis | It's strange that a thread pool often uses one process though -- I would've thought they would have split it across as many processes as there are CPU cores. | |
| Jul 17, 2011 at 18:59 | comment | added | Louis | I altered the performance line to suit what you said. Interestingly, I use ProcessPool in Python sometimes, which is like thread pooling, except it's a pool of processes, not threads. Even on Windows it seems to work smoothly. Then again I haven't exactly been straining it too much. I imagine that process pools are a neat way of doing concurrency in languages with runtimes that haven't a hope in hell of being multithreaded any time soon (cough GIL cough). | |
| Jul 17, 2011 at 16:40 | history | answered | Bernd Elkemann | CC BY-SA 3.0 |