At 08:42 PM 9/22/2005 +0200, Fredrik Lundh wrote: >Phillip J. Eby wrote: > >At 10:27 AM 9/22/2005 +0400, Sokolov Yura wrote: > >>It is so simple to write application server in Python. > >>It is so difficult to make it scallable in CPython. > > > > It seems you've never heard of fork(), which works just fine to scale > > Python processes on multiprocessor boxes. > >there's a version of fork hidden somewhere in CPython that solves all >interprocess communication and synchronization issues? cool. Yep, it's called "fork stateless application servers that keep their state in a relational database." <0.1 wink> It works for an astonishingly wide assortment of business problems, anyway. :) Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to adding better IPC capabilities; a Linda-like IPC facility would be nice to have, too. I was just pointing out the fallacy in the original post (whose attribution you deleted for some reason), that *scalability* is the issue. The original poster was claiming (in effect) that IPC and synchronization are trivial and that the GIL is responsible for some mythical lack of "scalability". Threads can't scale past one machine, no matter how many processors you put in it, so it's a red herring IMO.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4