On 6/12/2020 5:08 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 09:47, Mark Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Starting a new process is cheap. On my machine, starting a new Python
>> process takes under 1ms and uses a few Mbytes.
> Is that on Windows or Unix? Traditionally, process creation has been
> costly on Windows, which is why threads, and in-process solutions in
> general, tend to be more common on that platform. I haven't done
> experiments recently, but I do tend to avoid multiprocess-type
> solutions on Windows "just in case". I know that evaluating a new
> feature based on unsubstantiated assumptions informed by "it used to
> be like this" is ill-advised, but so is assuming that everything will
> be OK based on experience on a single platform :-)
Here's a test on Windows 10, 4 logical cpus, 8 GB of ram:
>>> timeit.timeit("""multiprocessing.Process(target=exit).start()""",number=100,
>>> globals=globals())
0.6297528999999997
>>> timeit.timeit("""multiprocessing.Process(target=exit).start()""",number=1000,
>>> globals=globals())
40.281721199999964
Or this way:
>>> timeit.timeit("""os.system('python.exe -c "exit()"')""",number=100,
>>> globals=globals())
17.461259299999995
--Edwin
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/KU3ODOFVE4NMVJWXGPSJMENCZ42P5VBW/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
