Re^6: why won't the hash go away?

If you are using fork on Vista, you aren't forking and there are no child processes involved. Which might explain why you can't get your misunderstanding to align with the documentation.

See this (skip down to the section labelled "How Perl does it" if your in a hurry) to understand what's "brain dead".

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

"Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."

Comment on Re^6: why won't the hash go away?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: why won't the hash go away? by WoodyWeaver (Monk) on Jan 14, 2008 at 23:23 UTC
Thanks, BrowserUK, cool article. I did have ProcessExplorer running, and saw that it was a new thread and not a new process instance. So it sounds like third and fourth arguments of times() are going to stay zero. Looking at memory utilization, I can see that the system is starting to get a bit pokey, but the good news is that the working set is only about two thirds of the peak working set, so it seems my objective was successful. So its not "memory management by forking" but "memory management by plucking threads". A richer image, I think.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^7: why won't the hash go away?
by WoodyWeaver (Monk) on Jan 14, 2008 at 23:23 UTC

I did have ProcessExplorer running, and saw that it was a new thread and not a new process instance. So it sounds like third and fourth arguments of times() are going to stay zero. Looking at memory utilization, I can see that the system is starting to get a bit pokey, but the good news is that the working set is only about two thirds of the peak working set, so it seems my objective was successful. So its not "memory management by forking" but "memory management by plucking threads". A richer image, I think.

[reply]