> > Yeah, that's what I ended up doing, and defining some global variables so > that I could re-use the previous functions I created, thanks for the help! > > One other question I had, is pcntl_waitpid necessary in this case? Passing > WNOHANG to it causes it to return immediately regardless of whether the > child has exited or not, and my previous test when I didn't use > pcntl_waitpid seemed to not leave any zombies as well. Would it be fine > just to spawn off the child, and have the child exit at the end, and > continue on my merry way with the parent without checking the status of the > child? > > As a more general question, I'm worried that if I just keep the script as > is, it's going to spawn off some crazy number of processes if I don't cap > it. The first solution I came up with is to use a static variable in the > parent thread, and then sleep every 20 threads or so. The most robust > solution would be to build logic into the calling function to actually check > for pids and only dispatch new threads when old ones had finished, but that > requires changing multiple places, while this can be localised to just the > dispatcher function. Does the first solution I propose seem sane? > > Waynn > > Actually, I just had another thought. I could take away the WNOHANG from pcntl_waitpid, and every 20 or so threads, wait for one to complete. It won't be precise, but it'll more or less queue them up in batches of 20 for sending.
