Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #28568 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Laszlo Nagy <gandalf@shopzeus.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-09-06 12:04 +0200 |
| Last post | 2012-09-06 12:04 +0200 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Looking for an IPC solution Laszlo Nagy <gandalf@shopzeus.com> - 2012-09-06 12:04 +0200
| From | Laszlo Nagy <gandalf@shopzeus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-06 12:04 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Looking for an IPC solution |
| Message-ID | <mailman.286.1346925867.27098.python-list@python.org> |
>>> >> How about the standard multiprocessing module? It supports shared >> memory, remote processes, and will most probably work under PyPy: >> http://docs.python.org/library/multiprocessing.html >> > I always thought, that the multiprocessing module does NOT use shared > memory (at least not under windows) It uses mmap() under windows. (I'm not an expert, but this is what I was said by others.) I did not know that multiprocessing can be used over TCP/IP. :) Probably I'll use zmq instead, because it has other nice features (auto reconnect, publisher/subscriber, multicast etc.) > > I would be very interested in a cross platform shared mem solution for > python. > Could you please point me to the right section. > > As far as I know, POSIX compatible shared memory does not exist on Windows. I remember a thread about this on the PostgreSQL mailing list - the Windows version of PostgreSQL somehow emulates shared memory too. I wanted to use shared memory because response times are much faster than TCP/IP.
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web