McDarren:

While threading can do the job, I'd do something much simpler: I'd simply assign each WAC to a group, and run the same program multiple times, each instance handling a single group. That way, you get through all your WACs quickly enough (for some definition of quickly enough), and without the headache of worrying about threads.

It's not that I'm afraid of threads (I rather like them for some things). It's just that problems like this don't really need it. I generally think of using threads when I have multiple tasks that need to be coordinated with each other. But in your case, you don't really care1 if you test WAC #3 a couple more times per hour than WAC #7, so long as they're all tested at least X times per hour. If after adding some WACs you can't hit your minimum test interval, just split off some groups and start a few more instances--so it's really not hard to scale. Using multiple instances of the program even makes it easy to distribute the testing among multiple servers with no great effort.

1 At least, I don't *think* you care...

...roboticus


In reply to Re: Testing many devices - are threads the answer? by roboticus
in thread Testing many devices - are threads the answer? by McDarren

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":