On Mon, Dec 20, 1999 at 08:24:28PM -0500, Chris Sedore wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Jason Evans wrote:
> > I disagree with your assessment that scalability of one thread per
> > connection is proportional to the quality of the threads implementation.
> > An ideal threaded program would have exactly as many threads as available
> > processors, and the threads would always be runnable. Of course,
> > real-world applications almost never work that way, but the goal of a
> > programmer should be to have as few threads as possible while still
> > achieving maximal parallelism. If connection scalability is an issue,
> > using one thread per connection ignores a critical aspect of high
> > performance threaded application design.
>
> I don't disagree with any of what you have written. I'd expect you to
> concede that it is true that the scalability is proportional. That is,
> LinuxThreads (that is, rfork()) is probably not anything like optimally
> scalable, but something like the last FreeBSD KSE model that I saw
> bouncing around on -arch would do alot better.
Yes, LinuxThreads has a number of scalability problems that make using even
a relatively small number of threads perform quite poorly, especially if
there are multiple multi-threaded applications running on the same machine.
I have serious issues with the 1:1 approach that LinuxThreads uses, because
it fails to perform reasonably for anything but a very constrained set of
multi-threaded programming models.
Jason
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
