Re: How would I add a pause b/t forks in my $pid = $pm->start and next;

instead of P::FM, use Proc::Queue, it allows you to set a minimum time interval between forks:


use Proc::Queue size => 2,
                delay => 3.0,
                qw(system_back);

foreach(@temp_files) {
    system_back("$program < $_");
}

1 while wait != -1;
[download]

Comment on Re: How would I add a pause b/t forks in my $pid = $pm->start and next; Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: How would I add a pause b/t forks in my $pid = $pm->start and next; by samtregar (Abbot) on Oct 27, 2005 at 21:50 UTC
I'd never seen Proc::Queue before and I must say it's pretty shocking. As though fork/wait/waitpid weren't complex enough it adds another layer of complexity on top of that! I can't imagine why anyone would use this instead of Paralell::ForkManager. Just looking at this code (from the synopsis) makes my teeth hurt: `1 while waitpid(-1, WNOHANG)>0; # reaps childs` [download] -sam	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: How would I add a pause b/t forks in my $pid = $pm->start and next; by salva (Canon) on Oct 28, 2005 at 08:03 UTC
As though fork/wait/waitpid weren't complex enough it adds another layer of complexity on top of that Well, not really, Proc::Queue is completelly transparent, `use` it at the beginning of your script and then call fork, exit, etc. as ever.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: How would I add a pause b/t forks in my $pid = $pm->start and next; by samtregar (Abbot) on Oct 28, 2005 at 17:54 UTC
Sure, but I don't want to fork/waitpid/wait as usual! That stuff is way too complicated to get right most of the time. That's why Parallel::ForkManager is a better solution, it hides the complexity of forking beneath a clear and consistent API. -sam	[reply]