Re: Unexpected output from fork (Win32)

Have a look at Re: Forking and writing to files for one way to parallel process lists with some file locking.

cheers

tachyon

Comment on Re: Unexpected output from fork (Win32)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Unexpected output from fork (Win32) by maa (Pilgrim) on Aug 09, 2004 at 12:00 UTC
there's no 'problem' with the results I just found it odd that each thread had reportedly processed 256 consecutive items even though they weren't actually done consecutively. Sample output: 10 threads started - waiting on completion. Computer000257 checked by -378 Computer000513 checked by -380 Computer000769 checked by -349 Computer001025 checked by -366 Computer001281 checked by -326 Computer001537 checked by -305 Computer001793 checked by -338 Computer002049 checked by -360 Computer002305 checked by -127 Computer000002 checked by -373 Computer000258 checked by -378 Computer000514 checked by -380 The input is sequential, Computer000000 - Computer10000. I just though it was 'wierd'.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: Unexpected output from fork (Win32)
by maa (Pilgrim) on Aug 09, 2004 at 12:00 UTC

there's no 'problem' with the results I just found it odd that each thread had reportedly processed 256 consecutive items even though they weren't actually done consecutively.

Sample output:


10 threads started - waiting on completion.
Computer000257 checked by -378
Computer000513 checked by -380
Computer000769 checked by -349
Computer001025 checked by -366
Computer001281 checked by -326
Computer001537 checked by -305
Computer001793 checked by -338
Computer002049 checked by -360
Computer002305 checked by -127
Computer000002 checked by -373
Computer000258 checked by -378
Computer000514 checked by -380

[reply]