thread limit in python
fakeaddress at nowhere.org
Sun Aug 14 00:58:55 CEST 2005
Peter Hansen wrote:
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>> Peter Hansen wrote:
>> > My question was in the context of the OP's situation. What
>> possible use
>> > for 1000 OS threads could he have?
>> Is this a language thing? Surely you realize that "what possible
>> use could <thing> be" carries an insinuation that <thing> is not
>> such a good idea.
> Obviously. Is it no longer permissible to question someone's approach
> to doing something?
> You're questioning my approach to inquiring after the OP's requirements,
> and clearly you believe there is a better way to do it. Wonderful. You
> may even be right. It's also off-topic.
I'm just arguing against the notion that a couple thousands
threads is generally a bad idea; if you didn't mean to suggest
that, then I misread you. There are a lot of neat ways to do
things that use one-or-two threads per thing-they-can-support.
In days past such methods did not scale well, but on modern
systems that is no longer true.
More information about the Python-list