Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #2972
| Date | 2011-04-11 00:21 -0700 |
|---|---|
| From | John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Subject | Re: Multiprocessing, shared memory vs. pickled copies |
| References | <a81205f6-97b0-47fb-9bae-e7c4dc85a581@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com> <4da1da6c$0$10564$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> <9f68912e-0272-4980-928f-b65e56fb5b9e@f30g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> |
| Message-ID | <4da2abff$0$10521$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> (permalink) |
| Organization | Sonic.Net |
On 4/10/2011 3:29 PM, sturlamolden wrote:
> On 10 apr, 18:27, John Nagle<na...@animats.com> wrote:
>
>> Unless you have a performance problem, don't bother with shared
>> memory.
>>
>> If you have a performance problem, Python is probably the wrong
>> tool for the job anyway.
>
> Then why does Python have a multiprocessing module?
Because nobody can fix the Global Interpreter Lock problem in CPython.
The multiprocessing module is a hack to get around the fact
that Python threads don't run concurrently, and thus, threaded
programs don't effectively use multi-core CPUs.
John Nagle
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Multiprocessing, shared memory vs. pickled copies Miki Tebeka <miki.tebeka@gmail.com> - 2011-04-10 09:11 -0700
Re: Multiprocessing, shared memory vs. pickled copies John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2011-04-10 09:27 -0700
Re: Multiprocessing, shared memory vs. pickled copies sturlamolden <sturlamolden@yahoo.no> - 2011-04-10 15:29 -0700
Re: Multiprocessing, shared memory vs. pickled copies John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2011-04-11 00:21 -0700
Re: Multiprocessing, shared memory vs. pickled copies sturlamolden <sturlamolden@yahoo.no> - 2011-04-11 12:11 -0700
Re: Multiprocessing, shared memory vs. pickled copies sturlamolden <sturlamolden@yahoo.no> - 2011-04-11 12:25 -0700
csiph-web