>>>>> Jure Erznožnik <jure.erznoz...@gmail.com> (JE) wrote:
>JE> Digging further, I found this: >JE> >http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2005/10/does_python_have_a_concurrency.html >JE> Looking up on this info, I found this: >JE> >http://docs.python.org/c-api/init.html#thread-state-and-the-global-interpreter-lock >JE> If this is correct, no amount of threading would ever help in Python >JE> since only one core / CPU could *by design* ever be utilized. Except >JE> for the code that accesses *no* functions / memory at all. It is not the design of the Python language, but of the Python implementation. And yes, it will not benefit from more than one core. You should watch/read this: http://blip.tv/file/2232410 http://www.dabeaz.com/python/GIL.pdf -- Piet van Oostrum <p...@cs.uu.nl> URL: http://pietvanoostrum.com [PGP 8DAE142BE17999C4] Private email: p...@vanoostrum.org -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list