Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!multikabel.net!newsfeed20.multikabel.net!news2.euro.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.002 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'python,': 0.01; 'languages,': 0.03; 'cpython': 0.05; 'python)': 0.05; 'space.': 0.07; 'threads,': 0.07; 'python': 0.08; 'variables.': 0.09; '16,': 0.15; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.15; 'chris,': 0.16; 'differently,': 0.16; 'downside': 0.16; 'received:192.168.1.104': 0.16; 'subject:threads': 0.16; 'thread.': 0.16; 'trash': 0.16; 'wed,': 0.17; 'cheers,': 0.18; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'example.': 0.18; 'exists': 0.18; 'please?': 0.18; 'cc:no real name:2**0': 0.21; 'process,': 0.21; 'default,': 0.23; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.23; 'code': 0.25; 'work,': 0.26; "i'm": 0.26; 'separate': 0.28; 'bit': 0.28; 'made.': 0.28; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.29; 'problem': 0.29; 'cc:addr:gmail.com': 0.30; 'generally': 0.30; 'confused': 0.30; 'letting': 0.30; 'optimal': 0.30; 'os,': 0.30; 'processes.': 0.30; 'separately': 0.30; 'tasks,': 0.30; 'threads': 0.30; 'threads.': 0.30; '(the': 0.30; 'chris': 0.30; 'ago': 0.30; 'nov': 0.31; 'pm,': 0.31; 'suit': 0.32; 'does': 0.32; 'operating': 0.33; 'decide': 0.33; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.33; 'handled': 0.34; 'another.': 0.34; 'scheduling': 0.34; 'problem.': 0.36; 'file': 0.36; 'cc:2**1': 0.36; 'thread': 0.36; 'variables': 0.36; 'another': 0.36; 'doing': 0.37; 'but': 0.37; 'two': 0.37; 'using': 0.37; 'run': 0.38; 'some': 0.38; 'received:192': 0.38; 'either': 0.39; "couldn't": 0.39; 'tasks': 0.39; "it's": 0.39; 'subject:: ': 0.39; 'might': 0.39; 'extremely': 0.40; 'data': 0.40; 'really': 0.40; 'more': 0.60; 'within': 0.60; 'your': 0.61; 'address': 0.61; 'manager,': 0.62; '2011': 0.62; 'share': 0.66; 'processes,': 0.67; 'header:Reply-To:1': 0.70; 'reply-to:no real name:2**0': 0.71; 'concept': 0.74; 'elaborate': 0.84; 'overhead.': 0.84; 'pain': 0.84 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:27:52 -0500 From: Dave Angel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110922 Thunderbird/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jack Keegan Subject: Re: Multiple threads References: <31766634.4.1321451296410.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqcm23> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:FQf9F+hcxw8LB9jhQUK0gutAlsIK66BotQsePNVxq2e 6KbvMLlpwckv9SW4Zr4Q1F125jwwqSVct4ZoDVorOhuh004QmJ NBPfF/aPFRRbFZ7O8rHEW+nFRnwjdrHuFVdja3Glp/NSL+xr0J PJm1EBv8OzpcCdnsn8uUJm/wvNuxF5lTiAJZMQciO97ZXAyx1/ YASKzY+xr8PJckN6PTfQMqoLhNMoimUDMJTlnC5qA6y/T5HzYD H2rlxuB5niK0rbuCfTlj8PEUmPQ/Q/9UyUGVkLhyHymSZ31zAp wcN8zyU7Nd1L24eLyuiArnNMGMqJLOzx8B0IIj6awfCAZWsUA= = Cc: python-list@python.org X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: d@davea.name List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 48 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1321464507 news.xs4all.nl 6920 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:55768 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:15780 On 11/16/2011 12:00 PM, Jack Keegan wrote: > Hi Chris, > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > >> First off, it's better in CPython (the most popular Python) to use >> multiple processes than multiple threads. > > I had been looking into treads and process/subprocess myself a while ago > and couldn't decide which would suit what I needed to do best. I'm still > very confused about the whole thing. Can you elaborate on the above a bit > please? > > Cheers, > > Jack Threads and processes are a concept that exists in your operating system, and Python can use either of them to advantage, depending on the problem. Note that different OS also handle them differently, so code that's optimal on one system might not be as optimal on another. Still, some generalities can be made. Each process is a separate program, with its own address space and its own file handles, etc. You can examine them separately with task manager, for example. If you launch multiple processes, they might not even all have to be python, so if one problem can be handled by an existing program, just run it as a separate process. Processes are generally very protected from each other, and the OS is generally better at scheduling them than it is at scheduling threads within a single process. If you have multiple cores, the processes can really run simultaneously, frequently with very small overhead. The downside is that you cannot share variables between processes without extra work, so if the two tasks are very interdependent, it's more of a pain to use separate processes. Within one process, you can have multiple threads. On some OS, and in some languages, this can be extremely efficient. Some programs launch hundreds of threads, and use them to advantage. By default, it's easy to share data between threads, since they're in the same address space. But the downsides are 1) it's very easy to trash another thread by walking on its variables. 2) Python does a lousy job of letting threads work independently. For CPU-bound tasks, using separate threads is likely to be slower than just doing it all in one thread. -- DaveA