The issue is that the pipe
is full. The subprocess stops, waiting for the pipe to empty out, but then your process (the Python interpreter) quits, breaking its end of the pipe (hence the error message).
p.wait()
will not help you:
Warning This will deadlock if the child process generates enough output to a stdout or stderr pipe such that it blocks waiting for the OS pipe buffer to accept more data. Use communicate()
to avoid that.
http://docs.python.org/library/subprocess.html#subprocess.Popen.wait
p.communicate()
will not help you:
Note The data read is buffered in memory, so do not use this method if the data size is large or unlimited.
http://docs.python.org/library/subprocess.html#subprocess.Popen.communicate
p.stdout.read(num_bytes)
will not help you:
Warning Use communicate()
rather than .stdin.write
, .stdout.read
or .stderr.read
to avoid deadlocks due to any of the other OS pipe buffers filling up and blocking the child process.
http://docs.python.org/library/subprocess.html#subprocess.Popen.stdout
The moral of the story is, for large output, subprocess.PIPE
will doom you to certain failure if your program is trying to read the data (it seems to me that you should be able to put p.stdout.read(bytes)
into a while p.returncode is None:
loop, but the above warning suggests that this could deadlock).
The docs suggest replacing a shell pipe with this:
p1 = Popen(["zgrep", "thingiwant", "largefile"], stdout=PIPE)
p2 = Popen(["processreceivingdata"], stdin=p1.stdout, stdout=PIPE)
output = p2.communicate()[0]
Notice that p2
is taking its standard input directly from p1
. This should avoid deadlocks, but given the contradictory warnings above, who knows.
Anyway, if that last part doesn't work for you (it should, though), you could try creating a temporary file, writing all data from the first call to that, and then using the temporary file as input to the next process.