Python: performance, footprint, multi-threading, etc.
Tim Browse
timb at tdv.com
Mon May 24 11:24:51 EDT 1999
Alexander Staubo wrote:
> As for your multithreading statement: 50-100 threads? Read up on threading! If
> you're even considering loading this much on any scheduler, including NT, then
> you're not up to scratch.
I just ran Process Viewer on this Windows 98 machine, which reveals that
it's running in excess of 80 threads at the moment. It doesn't feel
slow. It's not heavily loaded - I'm running an emailer, nesgroup reader
and HTML editor.
I do know about multi-threading, thanks all the same. You misread my
message - or I constructed the question poorly. I thought I made it
quite clear that I wasn't expecting to do this at the system thread
object level.
> For example, if most of your threads are sleeping,
> why are they running in the first place?
Um, because they need to be...I don't understand the question.
For example, most of the threads on this Win98 box are sleeping/inactive
- but that doesn't mean they don't have to be maintained by the process
scheduler. They can't just be thrown away - something has to wake them
up when they are needed.
> And even if 90% of your threads are
> sleeping, the context-switch hit and CPU load will bring your system to its
> knees very quickly.
Counter-example: the game "Unreal". It does precisely what I'm
describing. It seems quite fast.
Thanks for the other info. I'm coming to the conclusion that Python is
probably too complete/sophisticated for (some of) my purposes, at least
on this project.
Tim
--
Tim Browse
Tech Lead/Honesty Evangelist
The Digital Village
timb at tdv.com
More information about the Python-list
mailing list