[CLUE-Tech] PERL Q

[David Anselmi]

Hmmm.  I don't think zombie processes are a problem.  They should get
cleaned out eventually.  Or, instead of exiting, you could have the parent
wait and then exit.  A waiting process (or many) shouldn't be much
overhead.  Fork is what you want I think (and you don't need an exec if the
child is the same program as the parent).

Your $dummy=`perl loccrawler \"$new_url\" &` idea still forks (and probably
execs too, and maybe even forks and execs a shell first).  So I think this
doesn't get you anything.  How about a simple program that doesn't fork, but
gets called from a loop in the shell:

bash$ while true ; do perl loccrawler $new_url & ; done

Of course you can do the loop in perl too.  I think a loop is a better
approach than your cascade (infinite recursion).  Perhaps a wizard can
comment on whether there's a difference in how quickly processes get
created.  My guess is that the loop will get the most cpu time as the perl
processes block on I/O, so you'll hit your max processes limit before many
of them return.  But that's just a guess.

Dave

Grant Johnson wrote:

> Tim Russell wrote:
> >
> > What about fork?  That's the way you do it in C.
> >
> > You call fork() and look at the return value - the parent gets one
> > value, and the child gets another.  Both run at the same time.
> >
> > I think a "while (true) fork()" would do the trick for you...
> >
> > Tim
>

> Unfortunately, fork() makes it a chile process.  These are very much
> "fire and forget."  I want the first process to be able to stop running,
> and leave everything else going without causing zombies.  I may look at
> fork() followed by exec().