«

[Tim]
> Turns out that the Windows implementation of the Python C API function
> PyThread_start_new_thread() contained several "laziness" errors
>
> ...
>
> I'm testing putative fixes on a Win98 box and don't see any hangs any
> more. However, with more than about 3000 threads,
>
> thread.error: can't start new thread
>
> gets raised because MS's _beginthread() fails (with errno == EAGAIN ==
> "there are too many threads").

FYI, these fixes have been checked in and will be part of 2.3 final (and
2.2.4, if that's ever released).

The maximum number of threads you can have alive simultaneously on 32-bit
Windows in an all-default Python build is actually about 2000. This is
because each thread gets a megabyte of stack space by default, and 2048
threads would entirely exhaust the 31-bit user virtual address space just
for thread stacks. If you want to know more about that, Google on

CreateThread default stack size

The top hit is to the current relevant MSDN docs.

"Tim Peters" <> wrote in message news:<mailman.1057347547.21819.python->...
> [Tim]
> > Turns out that the Windows implementation of the Python C API function
> > PyThread_start_new_thread() contained several "laziness" errors
> >
> > ...
> >
> > I'm testing putative fixes on a Win98 box and don't see any hangs any
> > more. However, with more than about 3000 threads,
> >
> > thread.error: can't start new thread
> >
> > gets raised because MS's _beginthread() fails (with errno == EAGAIN ==
> > "there are too many threads").
>
> FYI, these fixes have been checked in and will be part of 2.3 final (and
> 2.2.4, if that's ever released).
>
> The maximum number of threads you can have alive simultaneously on 32-bit
> Windows in an all-default Python build is actually about 2000. This is
> because each thread gets a megabyte of stack space by default, and 2048
> threads would entirely exhaust the 31-bit user virtual address space just
> for thread stacks. If you want to know more about that, Google on
>
> CreateThread default stack size
>
> The top hit is to the current relevant MSDN docs.

I understand what you are saying. Obviously there is a limit for the
amount of threads running at the same time. Thank you for taking the
time to find the problems, and for fixing them.

Here's to a better Python!

vm

"Tim Peters" <> wrote in message news:<mailman.1057347547.21819.python->...
> [Tim]
> > Turns out that the Windows implementation of the Python C API function
> > PyThread_start_new_thread() contained several "laziness" errors
> >
> > ...
> >
> > I'm testing putative fixes on a Win98 box and don't see any hangs any
> > more. However, with more than about 3000 threads,
> >
> > thread.error: can't start new thread
> >
> > gets raised because MS's _beginthread() fails (with errno == EAGAIN ==
> > "there are too many threads").
>
> FYI, these fixes have been checked in and will be part of 2.3 final (and
> 2.2.4, if that's ever released).
>
> The maximum number of threads you can have alive simultaneously on 32-bit
> Windows in an all-default Python build is actually about 2000. This is
> because each thread gets a megabyte of stack space by default, and 2048
> threads would entirely exhaust the 31-bit user virtual address space just
> for thread stacks. If you want to know more about that, Google on
>
> CreateThread default stack size
>
> The top hit is to the current relevant MSDN docs.

I'm sorry that this comes immediately after my recent post, and that,
of all places, I am forced to put it here.

Right after I read Tim's recent post, I went to the python CVS and
noted that Tim refered to me as an 'anonymous coward'. Well Tim, I
just wanted to say that I appreciate you being part of the community,
too.

I hope to see more mature people working on the Python project than
Tim.

vm

vm_usenet wrote:
>
> Right after I read Tim's recent post, I went to the python CVS and
> noted that Tim refered to me as an 'anonymous coward'. Well Tim, I
> just wanted to say that I appreciate you being part of the community,
> too.

See http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/a/ac.htm, definition #2. This
is a fairly well-known term for someone who, like you, for some
strange reason does not want to use their name in discourse with
others (such as those who are helping them, hint, hint) online.

> I hope to see more mature people working on the Python project than
> Tim.

If you mean you want a greater number of mature people than just
Tim alone working on the Python project, then we can all agree and,
fortunately, that is the current situation.

If you meant something else, I suggest you learn more about Python
history and about those who have really made Python what it is before
you make comments of that nature.

-Peter

In article <>,
Peter Hansen <> wrote:
>vm_usenet wrote:
>>
>> Right after I read Tim's recent post, I went to the python CVS and
>> noted that Tim refered to me as an 'anonymous coward'. Well Tim, I
>> just wanted to say that I appreciate you being part of the community,
>> too.
>
>See http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/a/ac.htm, definition #2. This
>is a fairly well-known term for someone who, like you, for some
>strange reason does not want to use their name in discourse with
>others (such as those who are helping them, hint, hint) online.

(We've just been through this recently, but...) I don't think that the
prevalence of a term says anything about its potential for insult. I'm
sure you can think of many examples on your own.
--
Aahz () <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/

Usenet is not a democracy. It is a weird cross between an anarchy and a
dictatorship.

On 5 Jul 2003 09:56:35 -0700, (vm_usenet) wrote:

>"Tim Peters" <> wrote in message news:<mailman.1057347547.21819.python->...
>> [Tim]
[...]
>
>I hope to see more mature people working on the Python project than
>Tim.
>
LOL

Regards,
Bengt Richter

Peter Hansen <> wrote in message news:<>...
> vm_usenet wrote:
> >
> > Right after I read Tim's recent post, I went to the python CVS and
> > noted that Tim refered to me as an 'anonymous coward'. Well Tim, I
> > just wanted to say that I appreciate you being part of the community,
> > too.
>
> See http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/a/ac.htm, definition #2. This
> is a fairly well-known term for someone who, like you, for some
> strange reason does not want to use their name in discourse with
> others (such as those who are helping them, hint, hint) online.
>
> > I hope to see more mature people working on the Python project than
> > Tim.
>
> If you mean you want a greater number of mature people than just
> Tim alone working on the Python project, then we can all agree and,
> fortunately, that is the current situation.
>
> If you meant something else, I suggest you learn more about Python
> history and about those who have really made Python what it is before
> you make comments of that nature.
>
> -Peter

Ok, Ok...

I beg the forgiveness of everyone whom I insulted. I wasn't aware of
the
term 'Anonymous Coward' and so I interpreted it as an insult.

Tim - I'm sorry and I won't be making that mistake again.

And on that opportunity, I'd really like to admit that you indeed did
your work perfectly.

I love the Python language very much and I went through hell making my
organization adopt it as its formal prototyping and scripting
language.

Keep up the good work, everyone!