On Monday, July 21, 2003 2:46 pm +0100 Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 02:27:48PM +0100, Matthew Lawrence wrote:
I might be getting the wrong end of the stick about this, but is it
possible that undefing a bunch of stuff in child processes will actually
increase th
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 02:27:48PM +0100, Matthew Lawrence wrote:
> I might be getting the wrong end of the stick about this, but is it
> possible that undefing a bunch of stuff in child processes will actually
> increase the system footprint since the newly undefined data would
> differ from th
Niklas Nordebo wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 02:45:29PM +0100, Iain Tatch wrote:
CW> 1. what's happening
Perl is doing nothing more than calling your operating system's underlying
fork() call -- see `man 2 fork'.
Do that, and on Linux you'll see this:
Under Linux, fork is imple
Dominic Mitchell said:
> Your best bet is probably to try and split the program into two. One to
> fetch the data and another to process each chunk of data. Of course,
> you'll then have to invent a method of passing that chunk of data
> around[2].
there are tons of ways to do this... streams o
On 18/07/2003 at 14:28 +0100, Chisel Wright wrote:
I've got a colleague here in the orifice, and between us we know how to
use fork() but don't understand it as well as we'd like.
The [EMAIL PROTECTED] list just had a fairly long thread about
threading, (lazy) forking and Perl. You may find it use
> 'undef'ining variables is irrelevant, as that simply marks the memory
> they were using as "available for the current process (ie perl) to
> overwrite". The operating system won't reclaim that memory until your
> program exits. This isn't a feature of perl, it's a feature of most
> (all?) common
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 02:45:29PM +0100, Iain Tatch wrote:
> CW> 1. what's happening
>
> Perl is doing nothing more than calling your operating system's underlying
> fork() call -- see `man 2 fork'.
Do that, and on Linux you'll see this:
Under Linux, fork is implemented using copy-on-wr
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:28:20 +0100, Chisel Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've got a colleague here in the orifice, and between us we know how to
> use fork() but don't understand it as well as we'd like.
>
> There's a parent process that does a nice chunky select from a database,
> does othe
On Friday, July 18, 2003, 2:28:20 PM, Chisel Wright wrote:
CW> I've got a colleague here in the orifice, and between us we know how to
CW> use fork() but don't understand it as well as we'd like.
CW> Can anyone out there explain:
Assuming you're using a unix-esque operating system:
CW> 1. what'
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Chisel Wright wrote:
> There's a parent process that does a nice chunky select from a database,
> does other bits and pieces, and becomes a large process (around 70Mb).
>
> Then it forks off little kiddie processes. These all seem to have the
> same size/footprint as the pare
I've got a colleague here in the orifice, and between us we know how to
use fork() but don't understand it as well as we'd like.
There's a parent process that does a nice chunky select from a database,
does other bits and pieces, and becomes a large process (around 70Mb).
Then it forks off little
11 matches
Mail list logo
