Issue with MultiProcessing in Python with BeautifulSoup 4 - python

I'm having issuing using most or all of the cores to process the files faster , it can be reading multiple files a time or using multiple cores to read a single file.
I would prefer using multiple cores to read a single file before moving it to the next.
I tried the code below but can't seem to get all the core used up.
The following code would basically retrieve *.txt file in the directory which contains htmls , in json format.
#!/usr/bin/python
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
import requests
import json
import urlparse
import os
from bs4 import BeautifulSoup
from multiprocessing.dummy import Pool # This is a thread-based Pool
from multiprocessing import cpu_count
def crawlTheHtml(htmlsource):
htmlArray = json.loads(htmlsource)
for eachHtml in htmlArray:
soup = BeautifulSoup(eachHtml['result'], 'html.parser')
if all(['another text to search' not in str(soup),
'text to search' not in str(soup)]):
try:
gd_no = ''
try:
gd_no = soup.find('input', {'id': 'GD_NO'})['value']
except:
pass
r = requests.post('domain api address', data={
'gd_no': gd_no,
})
except:
pass
if __name__ == '__main__':
pool = Pool(cpu_count() * 2)
print(cpu_count())
fileArray = []
for filename in os.listdir(os.getcwd()):
if filename.endswith('.txt'):
fileArray.append(filename)
for file in fileArray:
with open(file, 'r') as myfile:
htmlsource = myfile.read()
results = pool.map(crawlTheHtml(htmlsource), f)
On top of that , i'm not sure what the ,f represent.
Question 1 :
What did i not do properly to fully utilize all the cores/threads ?
Question 2 :
Is there a better way to use try : except : because sometimes the value is not in the page and that would cause the script to stop. When dealing with multiple variables, i will end up with a lot of try & except statement.


Answer to question 1, your problem is this line:
from multiprocessing.dummy import Pool # This is a thread-based Pool
Answer taken from: multiprocessing.dummy in Python is not utilising 100% cpu
When you use multiprocessing.dummy, you're using threads, not processes:
multiprocessing.dummy replicates the API of multiprocessing but is no
more than a wrapper around the threading module.
That means you're restricted by the Global Interpreter Lock (GIL), and only one thread can actually execute CPU-bound operations at a time. That's going to keep you from fully utilizing your CPUs. If you want get full parallelism across all available cores, you're going to need to address the pickling issue you're hitting with multiprocessing.Pool.


i had this probleme
you need to do
from multiprocessing import Pool
from multiprocessing import freeze_support
and you need to do in the end
if __name__ = '__main__':
freeze_support()
and you can continue your script


from multiprocessing import Pool, Queue
from os import getpid
from time import sleep
from random import random
MAX_WORKERS=10
class Testing_mp(object):
def __init__(self):
"""
Initiates a queue, a pool and a temporary buffer, used only
when the queue is full.
"""
self.q = Queue()
self.pool = Pool(processes=MAX_WORKERS, initializer=self.worker_main,)
self.temp_buffer = []
def add_to_queue(self, msg):
"""
If queue is full, put the message in a temporary buffer.
If the queue is not full, adding the message to the queue.
If the buffer is not empty and that the message queue is not full,
putting back messages from the buffer to the queue.
"""
if self.q.full():
self.temp_buffer.append(msg)
else:
self.q.put(msg)
if len(self.temp_buffer) > 0:
add_to_queue(self.temp_buffer.pop())
def write_to_queue(self):
"""
This function writes some messages to the queue.
"""
for i in range(50):
self.add_to_queue("First item for loop %d" % i)
# Not really needed, just to show that some elements can be added
# to the queue whenever you want!
sleep(random()*2)
self.add_to_queue("Second item for loop %d" % i)
# Not really needed, just to show that some elements can be added
# to the queue whenever you want!
sleep(random()*2)
def worker_main(self):
"""
Waits indefinitely for an item to be written in the queue.
Finishes when the parent process terminates.
"""
print "Process {0} started".format(getpid())
while True:
# If queue is not empty, pop the next element and do the work.
# If queue is empty, wait indefinitly until an element get in the queue.
item = self.q.get(block=True, timeout=None)
print "{0} retrieved: {1}".format(getpid(), item)
# simulate some random length operations
sleep(random())
# Warning from Python documentation:
# Functionality within this package requires that the __main__ module be
# importable by the children. This means that some examples, such as the
# multiprocessing.Pool examples will not work in the interactive interpreter.
if __name__ == '__main__':
mp_class = Testing_mp()
mp_class.write_to_queue()
# Waits a bit for the child processes to do some work
# because when the parent exits, childs are terminated.
sleep(5)

Related

Multiprocessing callback message

I have long running process, that I want to keep track about in which state it currently is in. There is N processes running in same time therefore multiprocessing issue.
I pass Queue into process to report messages about state, and this Queue is then read(if not empty) in thread every couple of second.
I'm using Spider on windows as environment and later described behavior is in its console. I did not try it in different env.
from multiprocessing import Process,Queue,Lock
import time
def test(process_msg: Queue):
try:
process_msg.put('Inside process message')
# process...
return # to have exitstate = 0
except Exception as e:
process_msg.put(e)
callback_msg = Queue()
if __name__ == '__main__':
p = Process(target = test,
args = (callback_msg,))
p.start()
time.sleep(5)
print(p)
while not callback_msg.empty():
msg = callback_msg.get()
if type(msg) != Exception:
tqdm.write(str(msg))
else:
raise msg
Problem is that whatever I do with code, it never reads what is inside the Queue(also because it never puts anything in it). Only when I switch to dummy version, which runs similary to threading on only 1 CPU from multiprocessing.dummy import Process,Queue,Lock

Apparently the test function have to be in separate file.

concurrent futures jobs not submitted

I'm trying to use concurrent futures using the below example but my job never gets submitted. Don't see the print stmt in load_url.
import sys
from concurrent import futures
import multiprocessing
import time
import queue
def load_url(url,q):
# it will take 2 seconds to process a URL
print('load_url')
try:
time.sleep(2)
# put some dummy results in queue
for x in range(5):
print('put in queue')
q.put(x)
except Exception as e:
print('exception')
def main():
print('start')
manager = multiprocessing.Manager()
e = manager.Event()
q = queue.Queue()
with futures.ProcessPoolExecutor(max_workers=5) as executor:
livefutures = {executor.submit(load_url, url, q): url
for url in ['a','b']}
runningfutures = True
print('check_futures')
while runningfutures:
print('here')
runningfutures = [f for f in livefutures if f.running()]
if not runningfutures:
print('not running futures == ', q.empty())
while not q.empty():
print('not running futures1')
yield q.get(False)
if __name__ == '__main__':
for x in main():
print('x=',x)

Probably a bit late but I just ran into your post.
ProcessPoolExecutor is a bit picky, it requires the treads to execute simple functions and also sometimes behaves differently on Windows and Linux.
ThreadPoolExecutor is more permissive.
If you replace futures.ProcessPoolExecutor by futures.ThreadPoolExecutor it seems to work.

You are passing python's standard Queue to your asyncronous processes rather than a multiprocessing-safe Queue implementation. Therefore, your asyncronous job is failing with: TypeError: cannot pickle '_thread.lock' object. However, because you are not calling .result on the future object - this exception is never raised in the main process.
Instantiate your queue with manager.Queue() and the code works.

Python Multiprocessing Queue: Reading queue from another module

I have an issue reading a multiprocessing queue the function for reading the queue is being called from another module.
below is the class containing the function to start a thread which runs function_to_get_data. The class resides in its own file, which I will call one.py. function_to_get_data is in another file, two.py and is an infinite loop which puts data into the queue (code snippet for this further down). It also contains the function to read the queue. The Queue q is defined globally at the beginning.
import multiprocessing
from two import function_to_get_data
q = multiprocessing.Queue()
class Poller:
def startPoller(self):
pollerThread = multiprocessing.Process(target=module_to_get_data,args=(q,))
pollerThread.start()
def getPoller(self):
if q.empty():
print "queue is empty"
else:
pollResQueue = q.get()
q.put(pollResQueue)
return pollResQueue
if __name__ == "__main__":
startpoll = Poller()
startpoll.startPoller()
Below is snippet from function_to_get_data:
def module_to_get_data(q):
while 1:
# performs actions #
q.put(data_from_actions)
I have a another module, three.py, which requires the data from the queue and requests it by calling the function from the initial class:
from one import Poller
externalPoller = Poller()
data_this_module_needs = externalPoller.getPoller()
The issue is that the Queue is always empty.
I should add that the function in three.py is also called as a thread in one.py by a post from a web page:
def POST(data):
data = web.input()
if data == 'Start':
thread_two = multiprocessing.Process(target= function_in_three_py, args=(q,))
thread_two.start()
If I use the python command line and enter the two Poller functions and call them, I get data from the queue no problem.

python multicore queue randomly hangs for no reason, despite queue size being tiny

in python here is my multiprocessing setup. I subclassed the Process method and gave it
a queue and some other fields for pickling/data purposes.
This strategy works about 95% of the time, the other 5% for an unknown reason the queue just hangs and it never finishes (it's common that 3 of the 4 cores finish their jobs and the last one takes forever so I have to just kill the job).
I am aware that queue's have a fixed size in python, or they will hang. My queue only stores one character strings... the id of the processor, so it can't be that.
Here is the exact line where my code halts:
res = self._recv()
Does anyone have ideas? The formal code is below.
Thank you.
from multiprocessing import Process, Queue
from multiprocessing import cpu_count as num_cores
import codecs, cPickle
class Processor(Process):
def __init__(self, queue, elements, process_num):
super(Processor, self).__init__()
self.queue = queue
self.elements = elements
self.id = process_num
def job(self):
ddd = []
for l in self.elements:
obj = ... heavy computation ...
dd = {}
dd['data'] = obj.data
dd['meta'] = obj.meta
ddd.append(dd)
cPickle.dump(ddd, codecs.open(
urljoin(TOPDIR, self.id+'.txt'), 'w'))
return self.id
def run(self):
self.queue.put(self.job())
if __name__=='__main__':
processes = []
for i in range(0, num_cores()):
q = Queue()
p = Processor(q, divided_work(), process_num=str(i))
processes.append((p, q))
p.start()
for val in processes:
val[0].join()
key = val[1].get()
storage = urljoin(TOPDIR, key+'.txt')
ddd = cPickle.load(codecs.open(storage , 'r'))
.. unpack ddd process data ...

Do a time.sleep(0.001) at the beginning of your run() method.

From my experience
time.sleep(0.001)
Is by far not long enough.
I had a similar problem. It seems to happen if you call get() or put() on a queue "too early". I guess it somehow fails to initialize quick enough. Not entirely sure, but I'm speculating that it might have something to do with the ways a queue might use the underlying operating system to pass messages. It started happening to me after I started using BeautifulSoup and lxml and it affected totally unrelated code.
My solution is a little big ugly but it's simple and it works:
import time
def run(self):
error = True
while error:
self.queue.put(self.job())
error = False
except EOFError:
print "EOFError. retrying..."
time.sleep(1)
On my machine it usually retries twice during application start-up and afterwards never again. You need to do that inside of sender AND receiver since this error will occur on both sides.

Using Python's Multiprocessing module to execute simultaneous and separate SEAWAT/MODFLOW model runs

I'm trying to complete 100 model runs on my 8-processor 64-bit Windows 7 machine. I'd like to run 7 instances of the model concurrently to decrease my total run time (approx. 9.5 min per model run). I've looked at several threads pertaining to the Multiprocessing module of Python, but am still missing something.
Using the multiprocessing module
How to spawn parallel child processes on a multi-processor system?
Python Multiprocessing queue
My Process:
I have 100 different parameter sets I'd like to run through SEAWAT/MODFLOW to compare the results. I have pre-built the model input files for each model run and stored them in their own directories. What I'd like to be able to do is have 7 models running at a time until all realizations have been completed. There needn't be communication between processes or display of results. So far I have only been able to spawn the models sequentially:
import os,subprocess
import multiprocessing as mp
ws = r'D:\Data\Users\jbellino\Project\stJohnsDeepening\model\xsec_a'
files = []
for f in os.listdir(ws + r'\fieldgen\reals'):
if f.endswith('.npy'):
files.append(f)
## def work(cmd):
## return subprocess.call(cmd, shell=False)
def run(f,def_param=ws):
real = f.split('_')[2].split('.')[0]
print 'Realization %s' % real
mf2k = r'c:\modflow\mf2k.1_19\bin\mf2k.exe '
mf2k5 = r'c:\modflow\MF2005_1_8\bin\mf2005.exe '
seawatV4 = r'c:\modflow\swt_v4_00_04\exe\swt_v4.exe '
seawatV4x64 = r'c:\modflow\swt_v4_00_04\exe\swt_v4x64.exe '
exe = seawatV4x64
swt_nam = ws + r'\reals\real%s\ss\ss.nam_swt' % real
os.system( exe + swt_nam )
if __name__ == '__main__':
p = mp.Pool(processes=mp.cpu_count()-1) #-leave 1 processor available for system and other processes
tasks = range(len(files))
results = []
for f in files:
r = p.map_async(run(f), tasks, callback=results.append)
I changed the if __name__ == 'main': to the following in hopes it would fix the lack of parallelism I feel is being imparted on the above script by the for loop. However, the model fails to even run (no Python error):
if __name__ == '__main__':
p = mp.Pool(processes=mp.cpu_count()-1) #-leave 1 processor available for system and other processes
p.map_async(run,((files[f],) for f in range(len(files))))
Any and all help is greatly appreciated!
EDIT 3/26/2012 13:31 EST
Using the "Manual Pool" method in #J.F. Sebastian's answer below I get parallel execution of my external .exe. Model realizations are called up in batches of 8 at a time, but it doesn't wait for those 8 runs to complete before calling up the next batch and so on:
from __future__ import print_function
import os,subprocess,sys
import multiprocessing as mp
from Queue import Queue
from threading import Thread
def run(f,ws):
real = f.split('_')[-1].split('.')[0]
print('Realization %s' % real)
seawatV4x64 = r'c:\modflow\swt_v4_00_04\exe\swt_v4x64.exe '
swt_nam = ws + r'\reals\real%s\ss\ss.nam_swt' % real
subprocess.check_call([seawatV4x64, swt_nam])
def worker(queue):
"""Process files from the queue."""
for args in iter(queue.get, None):
try:
run(*args)
except Exception as e: # catch exceptions to avoid exiting the
# thread prematurely
print('%r failed: %s' % (args, e,), file=sys.stderr)
def main():
# populate files
ws = r'D:\Data\Users\jbellino\Project\stJohnsDeepening\model\xsec_a'
wdir = os.path.join(ws, r'fieldgen\reals')
q = Queue()
for f in os.listdir(wdir):
if f.endswith('.npy'):
q.put_nowait((os.path.join(wdir, f), ws))
# start threads
threads = [Thread(target=worker, args=(q,)) for _ in range(8)]
for t in threads:
t.daemon = True # threads die if the program dies
t.start()
for _ in threads: q.put_nowait(None) # signal no more files
for t in threads: t.join() # wait for completion
if __name__ == '__main__':
mp.freeze_support() # optional if the program is not frozen
main()
No error traceback is available. The run() function performs its duty when called upon a single model realization file as with mutiple files. The only difference is that with multiple files, it is called len(files) times though each of the instances immediately closes and only one model run is allowed to finish at which time the script exits gracefully (exit code 0).
Adding some print statements to main() reveals some information about active thread-counts as well as thread status (note that this is a test on only 8 of the realization files to make the screenshot more manageable, theoretically all 8 files should be run concurrently, however the behavior continues where they are spawn and immediately die except one):
def main():
# populate files
ws = r'D:\Data\Users\jbellino\Project\stJohnsDeepening\model\xsec_a'
wdir = os.path.join(ws, r'fieldgen\test')
q = Queue()
for f in os.listdir(wdir):
if f.endswith('.npy'):
q.put_nowait((os.path.join(wdir, f), ws))
# start threads
threads = [Thread(target=worker, args=(q,)) for _ in range(mp.cpu_count())]
for t in threads:
t.daemon = True # threads die if the program dies
t.start()
print('Active Count a',threading.activeCount())
for _ in threads:
print(_)
q.put_nowait(None) # signal no more files
for t in threads:
print(t)
t.join() # wait for completion
print('Active Count b',threading.activeCount())
**The line which reads "D:\\Data\\Users..." is the error information thrown when I manually stop the model from running to completion. Once I stop the model running, the remaining thread status lines get reported and the script exits.
EDIT 3/26/2012 16:24 EST
SEAWAT does allow concurrent execution as I've done this in the past, spawning instances manually using iPython and launching from each model file folder. This time around, I'm launching all model runs from a single location, namely the directory where my script resides. It looks like the culprit may be in the way SEAWAT is saving some of the output. When SEAWAT is run, it immediately creates files pertaining to the model run. One of these files is not being saved to the directory in which the model realization is located, but in the top directory where the script is located. This is preventing any subsequent threads from saving the same file name in the same location (which they all want to do since these filenames are generic and non-specific to each realization). The SEAWAT windows were not staying open long enough for me to read or even see that there was an error message, I only realized this when I went back and tried to run the code using iPython which directly displays the printout from SEAWAT instead of opening a new window to run the program.
I am accepting #J.F. Sebastian's answer as it is likely that once I resolve this model-executable issue, the threading code he has provided will get me where I need to be.
FINAL CODE
Added cwd argument in subprocess.check_call to start each instance of SEAWAT in its own directory. Very key.
from __future__ import print_function
import os,subprocess,sys
import multiprocessing as mp
from Queue import Queue
from threading import Thread
import threading
def run(f,ws):
real = f.split('_')[-1].split('.')[0]
print('Realization %s' % real)
seawatV4x64 = r'c:\modflow\swt_v4_00_04\exe\swt_v4x64.exe '
cwd = ws + r'\reals\real%s\ss' % real
swt_nam = ws + r'\reals\real%s\ss\ss.nam_swt' % real
subprocess.check_call([seawatV4x64, swt_nam],cwd=cwd)
def worker(queue):
"""Process files from the queue."""
for args in iter(queue.get, None):
try:
run(*args)
except Exception as e: # catch exceptions to avoid exiting the
# thread prematurely
print('%r failed: %s' % (args, e,), file=sys.stderr)
def main():
# populate files
ws = r'D:\Data\Users\jbellino\Project\stJohnsDeepening\model\xsec_a'
wdir = os.path.join(ws, r'fieldgen\reals')
q = Queue()
for f in os.listdir(wdir):
if f.endswith('.npy'):
q.put_nowait((os.path.join(wdir, f), ws))
# start threads
threads = [Thread(target=worker, args=(q,)) for _ in range(mp.cpu_count()-1)]
for t in threads:
t.daemon = True # threads die if the program dies
t.start()
for _ in threads: q.put_nowait(None) # signal no more files
for t in threads: t.join() # wait for completion
if __name__ == '__main__':
mp.freeze_support() # optional if the program is not frozen
main()

I don't see any computations in the Python code. If you just need to execute several external programs in parallel it is sufficient to use subprocess to run the programs and threading module to maintain constant number of processes running, but the simplest code is using multiprocessing.Pool:
#!/usr/bin/env python
import os
import multiprocessing as mp
def run(filename_def_param):
filename, def_param = filename_def_param # unpack arguments
... # call external program on `filename`
def safe_run(*args, **kwargs):
"""Call run(), catch exceptions."""
try: run(*args, **kwargs)
except Exception as e:
print("error: %s run(*%r, **%r)" % (e, args, kwargs))
def main():
# populate files
ws = r'D:\Data\Users\jbellino\Project\stJohnsDeepening\model\xsec_a'
workdir = os.path.join(ws, r'fieldgen\reals')
files = ((os.path.join(workdir, f), ws)
for f in os.listdir(workdir) if f.endswith('.npy'))
# start processes
pool = mp.Pool() # use all available CPUs
pool.map(safe_run, files)
if __name__=="__main__":
mp.freeze_support() # optional if the program is not frozen
main()
If there are many files then pool.map() could be replaced by for _ in pool.imap_unordered(safe_run, files): pass.
There is also mutiprocessing.dummy.Pool that provides the same interface as multiprocessing.Pool but uses threads instead of processes that might be more appropriate in this case.
You don't need to keep some CPUs free. Just use a command that starts your executables with a low priority (on Linux it is a nice program).
ThreadPoolExecutor example
concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor would be both simple and sufficient but it requires 3rd-party dependency on Python 2.x (it is in the stdlib since Python 3.2).
#!/usr/bin/env python
import os
import concurrent.futures
def run(filename, def_param):
... # call external program on `filename`
# populate files
ws = r'D:\Data\Users\jbellino\Project\stJohnsDeepening\model\xsec_a'
wdir = os.path.join(ws, r'fieldgen\reals')
files = (os.path.join(wdir, f) for f in os.listdir(wdir) if f.endswith('.npy'))
# start threads
with concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=8) as executor:
future_to_file = dict((executor.submit(run, f, ws), f) for f in files)
for future in concurrent.futures.as_completed(future_to_file):
f = future_to_file[future]
if future.exception() is not None:
print('%r generated an exception: %s' % (f, future.exception()))
# run() doesn't return anything so `future.result()` is always `None`
Or if we ignore exceptions raised by run():
from itertools import repeat
... # the same
# start threads
with concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=8) as executor:
executor.map(run, files, repeat(ws))
# run() doesn't return anything so `map()` results can be ignored
subprocess + threading (manual pool) solution
#!/usr/bin/env python
from __future__ import print_function
import os
import subprocess
import sys
from Queue import Queue
from threading import Thread
def run(filename, def_param):
... # define exe, swt_nam
subprocess.check_call([exe, swt_nam]) # run external program
def worker(queue):
"""Process files from the queue."""
for args in iter(queue.get, None):
try:
run(*args)
except Exception as e: # catch exceptions to avoid exiting the
# thread prematurely
print('%r failed: %s' % (args, e,), file=sys.stderr)
# start threads
q = Queue()
threads = [Thread(target=worker, args=(q,)) for _ in range(8)]
for t in threads:
t.daemon = True # threads die if the program dies
t.start()
# populate files
ws = r'D:\Data\Users\jbellino\Project\stJohnsDeepening\model\xsec_a'
wdir = os.path.join(ws, r'fieldgen\reals')
for f in os.listdir(wdir):
if f.endswith('.npy'):
q.put_nowait((os.path.join(wdir, f), ws))
for _ in threads: q.put_nowait(None) # signal no more files
for t in threads: t.join() # wait for completion

Here is my way to maintain the minimum x number of threads in the memory. Its an combination of threading and multiprocessing modules. It may be unusual to other techniques like respected fellow members have explained above BUT may be worth considerable. For the sake of explanation, I am taking a scenario of crawling a minimum of 5 websites at a time.
so here it is:-
#importing dependencies.
from multiprocessing import Process
from threading import Thread
import threading
# Crawler function
def crawler(domain):
# define crawler technique here.
output.write(scrapeddata + "\n")
pass
Next is threadController function. This function will control the flow of threads to the main memory. It will keep activating the threads to maintain the threadNum "minimum" limit ie. 5. Also it won't exit until, all Active threads(acitveCount) are finished up.
It will maintain a minimum of threadNum(5) startProcess function threads (these threads will eventually start the Processes from the processList while joining them with a time out of 60 seconds). After staring threadController, there would be 2 threads which are not included in the above limit of 5 ie. the Main thread and the threadController thread itself. thats why threading.activeCount() != 2 has been used.
def threadController():
print "Thread count before child thread starts is:-", threading.activeCount(), len(processList)
# staring first thread. This will make the activeCount=3
Thread(target = startProcess).start()
# loop while thread List is not empty OR active threads have not finished up.
while len(processList) != 0 or threading.activeCount() != 2:
if (threading.activeCount() < (threadNum + 2) and # if count of active threads are less than the Minimum AND
len(processList) != 0): # processList is not empty
Thread(target = startProcess).start() # This line would start startThreads function as a seperate thread **
startProcess function, as a separate thread, would start Processes from the processlist. The purpose of this function (**started as a different thread) is that It would become a parent thread for Processes. So when It will join them with a timeout of 60 seconds, this would stop the startProcess thread to move ahead but this won't stop threadController to perform. So this way, threadController will work as required.
def startProcess():
pr = processList.pop(0)
pr.start()
pr.join(60.00) # joining the thread with time out of 60 seconds as a float.
if __name__ == '__main__':
# a file holding a list of domains
domains = open("Domains.txt", "r").read().split("\n")
output = open("test.txt", "a")
processList = [] # thread list
threadNum = 5 # number of thread initiated processes to be run at one time
# making process List
for r in range(0, len(domains), 1):
domain = domains[r].strip()
p = Process(target = crawler, args = (domain,))
processList.append(p) # making a list of performer threads.
# starting the threadController as a seperate thread.
mt = Thread(target = threadController)
mt.start()
mt.join() # won't let go next until threadController thread finishes.
output.close()
print "Done"
Besides maintaining a minimum number of threads in the memory, my aim was to also have something which could avoid stuck threads or processes in the memory. I did this using the time out function.
My apologies for any typing mistake.
I hope this construction would help anyone in this world.
Regards,
Vikas Gautam

Categories

Resources