Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Efficient way to fork processes and keep a running count?

by targetsmart (Curate)
on Jan 28, 2010 at 05:33 UTC ( #820090=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Efficient way to fork processes and keep a running count?


As per the scenarios you showed, IMHO, there is no need to fork a fourth child, the second child can do the read of disc4 once it is done with disc2.
As only 3 drives exist, 3 processes at a time would be sufficient, that too reusing the existing pool of processes without forking a new one is a good idea.
Forking more number of processes would increase unnecessary complexity.


Vivek
-- 'I' am not the body, 'I' am the 'soul'/'consciousness', which has no beginning or no end, no attachment or no aversion, nothing to attain or lose.


Comment on Re: Efficient way to fork processes and keep a running count?
Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Efficient way to fork processes and keep a running count?
by ikegami (Pope) on Jan 28, 2010 at 06:04 UTC
    You are violently agreeing with the OP. He said the fourth child should be forked after one of the original three had exited, meaning at most three children exist at any given time.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://820090]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others musing on the Monastery: (9)
As of 2015-07-29 22:50 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    The top three priorities of my open tasks are (in descending order of likelihood to be worked on) ...









    Results (269 votes), past polls