Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!multikabel.net!newsfeed20.multikabel.net!news2.euro.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!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 0.006 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.99; '*S*': 0.00; 'socket': 0.04; 'subject:when': 0.07; 'python': 0.08; 'it;': 0.09; 'port,': 0.09; 'sockets': 0.09; 'subject:report': 0.09; 'subject:error': 0.10; 'am,': 0.12; 'from:addr:rosuav': 0.16; 'from:name:chris angelico': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; "haven't": 0.20; 'trying': 0.21; "doesn't": 0.23; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.23; 'creating': 0.25; 'separate': 0.28; 'sat,': 0.28; 'bit': 0.28; 'script.': 0.28; 'message- id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.29; 'problem': 0.29; 'module': 0.30; 'binding': 0.30; 'can,': 0.30; 'easier.': 0.30; 'nov': 0.31; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.32; 'actually': 0.33; 'things': 0.35; 'received:209.85.161': 0.35; 'before.': 0.36; 'subject:skip:m 10': 0.36; 'but': 0.37; 'think': 0.37; 'subject:with': 0.38; 'received:google.com': 0.38; 'received:209.85': 0.38; 'subject:: ': 0.39; 'might': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'received:209': 0.40; '2011': 0.62; 'share': 0.66; 'processes,': 0.67; '19,': 0.68; ',the': 0.84; 'subject:always': 0.84 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=TDX3QGuloEqHuX9+BDDV9Za4nU+E7WOeqJt9jVkRCME=; b=AvGI9EmQkrUZSmkqjORdeudy+6XagaFZc48l8kgd5n058Vb/QT57iFLvwr4C0MokYQ gnInuyXEbEgKLmcEegG9AKLwvoUf13f4Hxh/w94Ss37en2U3WrpM+EgXPiL2eqWtb4Hy pCpIb3yw3Quulbtq4T6RyHxWxtvCljOpW9JfE= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <674531.1586.1321631509432.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqhd1> References: <12715937.830.1321611809592.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqoo7> <14330307.286.1321631316567.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqcm23> <674531.1586.1321631509432.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqhd1> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 03:04:11 +1100 Subject: Re: Why sock.bind is always report 10048 error when in a script with multiprocessing From: Chris Angelico To: python-list@python.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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: 12 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1321632261 news.xs4all.nl 6893 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:48328 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:15898 On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Junfeng Hu wrote: > And actually ,the socket hadn't been used in this script. Doesn't matter that you haven't used it; you're binding to the port, that's what causes the 10048. I think the main problem is that you're trying to share sockets across processes, but I haven't used the Python multiprocessing module with sockets before. I would recommend, if you can, creating separate sockets in each subprocess; that might make things a bit easier. ChrisA