Processes not exiting
matt.urry at googlemail.com
Fri Aug 7 16:29:46 CEST 2009
On 3 Aug, 09:36, ma3mju <matt.u... at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 2 Aug, 21:49, Piet van Oostrum <p... at cs.uu.nl> wrote:
> > >>>>> MRAB <pyt... at mrabarnett.plus.com> (M) wrote:
> > >M> I wonder whether one of the workers is raising an exception, perhaps due
> > >M> to lack of memory, when there are large number of jobs to process.
> > But that wouldn't prevent the join. And you would probably get an
> > exception traceback printed.
> > I wonder if something fishy is happening in the multiprocessing
> > infrastructure. Or maybe the Fortran code goes wrong because it has no
> > protection against buffer overruns and similar problems, I think.
> > --
> > Piet van Oostrum <p... at cs.uu.nl>
> > URL:http://pietvanoostrum.com[PGP8DAE142BE17999C4]
> > Private email: p... at vanoostrum.org
> I don't think it's a memory problem, the reason for the hard and easy
> queue is because for larger examples it uses far more RAM. If I run
> all of workers with harder problems I do begin to run out of RAM and
> end up spending all my time switching in and out of swap so I limit
> the number of harder problems I run at the same time. I've watched it
> run to the end (a very boring couple of hours) and it stays out of my
> swap space and everything appears to be staying in RAM. Just hangs
> after all "poison" has been printed for each process.
> The other thing is that I get the message "here" telling me I broke
> out of the loop after seeing the poison pill in the process and I get
> all the things queued listed as output surely if I were to run out of
> memory I wouldn't expect all of the jobs to be listed as output.
> I have a serial script that works fine so I know individually for each
> example the fortran code works.
Any ideas for a solution?
More information about the Python-list