I know there were problems with threads/Java/Linux at one point (not
sure if it was fixed). I think that's why there came about this "green"
threads and "native" threads variants. Not sure if the same limitation
is on FreeBSD. I *think* the problem was that it actually wouldn't
distribute the threads across multiple CPUs, or something like that....I
just faintly remember...
--brett
On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 06:54, Ayan George wrote:
> Jim,
>
> A library threads implementation doesn't
> necessarily mean poor performance. On a single
> CPU machine, it can actually be more effecient
> than a kernel implementation. Although the use
> of user threads precludes scaling threads across
> CPUs I think the FreeBSD threads library works
> well.
>
> Not to start a discussion about pthreads
> implementations, I just wanted to note that
> library implementations do not inherently perform
> poorly.
>
> -Ayan
>
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Jim Davidson wrote:
>
> >
> > In a message dated 10/30/02 9:03:22 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >
> > > The article mentions that they stayed away from Java because of the thread
> > > implementation on FreeBSD (presumably 4.x). Given that AOLserver uses
> > > threads heavily, does anyone have experience running it under FreeBSD? Is
> > > it OK? OK under load?
> > >
> >
> > Hi,
> > I do some of the aolserver development on my FreeBSD laptop but I wouldn't
> > run it there - default threads are user based which perform poorly. You can
> > get AOLserver to link against a port of Linux threads which emulate system
> > clone() based threads with BSD rfork() which may perform better.
> > -Jim
> >
--
Brett Schwarz
brett_schwarz AT yahoo.com
