On 01/04/11 18.12, dsimcha wrote:
== 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.
I guess multiple cores will help out there.
