== Quote from Sean Kelly (s...@invisibleduck.org)'s article > On Apr 1, 2011, at 7:49 AM, Jonas Drewsen wrote: > > On 01/04/11 01.07, dsimcha wrote: > >> > >> > >> Again forgive my naiveness, as most of my experience with concurrency > is > >> concurrency to implement parallelism, not concurrency for its own > sake. Shouldn't > >> 32,000 threads be more than enough for anything? I can't imagine > what kinds of > >> programs would really need this level of concurrency, or how bad > performance on > >> any specific thread would be when you have this many. Right now in > my Task > >> Manager the program with the most threads is explorer.exe, with 28. > > > > There doesn't have to be a thread for each socket. Actually many > servers have very few threads with many sockets each. 32000 sockets is > not unimaginable for certain server loads e.g. websockets or game > servers. But I know it is not that common. > Hopefully not at all common. With that level of concurrency the process > will spend more time context switching than executing code.
...or use such huge timeslices that the illusion of simultaneous execution breaks down.