As per the scenarios you showed, IMHO, there is no need to fork a fourth child, the second child can do the read of disc4 once it is done with disc2.
As only 3 drives exist, 3 processes at a time would be sufficient, that too reusing the existing pool of processes without forking a new one is a good idea.
Forking more number of processes would increase unnecessary complexity.
-- 'I' am not the body, 'I' am the 'soul'/'consciousness', which has no beginning or no end, no attachment or no aversion, nothing to attain or lose.
|Replies are listed 'Best First'.|
Re^2: Efficient way to fork processes and keep a running count?
by ikegami (Pope) on Jan 28, 2010 at 06:04 UTC