In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
.
.
.
>> I've read somewhere (I cann't recall where, though, was it MSDN?) that
>> Windows is not well suited to run more than 32 threads per process. Most
>> of the code I saw doesn't spawn more threads than a half of this.
>>
>This is apocryphal. Do you have any hard evidence for this assertion?
>
>Apache, for example, can easily spawn more threads under Windows, and
>I've written code that uses 200 threads with excellent performance.
>Things seem to slow down around the 2,000 mark for some reason I'm not
>familiar with.
.
.
.
I'll support Mr. Zgoda's apocrypha. The thing is, as so often
obtains, you're both right--early Windows flavors could dismember
themselves entertainingly when a process launched a few dozen
threads, but WinXP vastly improves that condition.
I assert that I could substantiate my claims with appropriate
references. I choose not to do so today.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
