interesting....
this is really worth a write up in the documentation.
marcf
|-----Original Message-----
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of danch
|Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 8:11 AM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] JBoss Best platform/Java implementation
|
|
|Achilleus Mantzios wrote:
|
|> I read somewhere in the docs that win 2000 may outperform linux
|kernel 2.2
|> even by 2 times when not using apache/jetty for thread mngmnt, because
|> of the lack of "real" linux threads.
|> As far as i know this is not the case in kernel 2.4 which supports
|> kernel-space threads.
|
|The issue is deaper than kernel threads. Linux threads are treated by
|the kernel scheduler exactly the same as processes, and with native
|threads one Java thread is one kernel thread. This can overload the
|scheduler on a busier system. In contrast, Solaris and AIX (for example)
|have thread models where a user thread isn't necessarily a kernel thread
|- kernel threads are created only when needed, so you can have some
|number M of user threads (Java threads, in our case) mapped to some
|smaller number N of kernel threads. Much easier on the kernel scheduler.
|
|However, IBM has just released (as a 1.0) a new thread library for Linux
|that does this M to N mapping. I haven't given it a try yet, but here's
|the link.
|
|
|http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/projects/pthreads/
|
|-danch
|
|
|_______________________________________________
|JBoss-user mailing list
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
_______________________________________________
JBoss-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
