Skip to content

Conversation

@mrocklin
Copy link
Member

I believe that this was the cause of an intermittent error in #661 . This forces dependence on dask master.

@mrocklin
Copy link
Member Author

@shoyer is it sufficient to have a per-process lock for HDF5 reading or do we need a per-machine lock?

@shoyer
Copy link
Member

shoyer commented Nov 14, 2016

I'm pretty sure per process is enough.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 6:01 AM Matthew Rocklin notifications@github.com
wrote:

@shoyer https://github.com/shoyer is it sufficient to have a
per-process lock for HDF5 reading or do we need a per-machine lock?


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#662 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABKS1jbnmb9p2mPP-hLe0Zb_n2eP5qR-ks5q-Gm4gaJpZM4KxSDJ
.

@mrocklin mrocklin merged commit 205b441 into dask:master Nov 14, 2016
@mrocklin mrocklin deleted the h5py-test branch November 14, 2016 15:02
@pitrou
Copy link
Member

pitrou commented Nov 15, 2016

I've submitted a fix upstream at h5py/h5py#776

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants