Paul J Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
When was it decided that we are going multithreaded.
No decision yet, afaik. I'm guessing Aaron's just getting exited about
the idea... We're all mostly just awaiting the results from Leifs
efforts, so we cn run our own
Aaron Stone wrote:
Hmm, yeah, true, no decision yet, but lots of excitement ;-) However,
there are some things that simply need to be threaded. Afaict, Oracle's
connection overhead is so huge that nothing getting near it can survive
without threading. I'd like to see some of that with my own
Leif Jackson wrote:
Could you please explain how Oracle's connection overhead directly
translates to we need threads? A new thread still has to open up a new
connection to the DB. It sounds to me that Oracle's connection overhead
(or Postgresql or whatever) is more an argument for persistent
Leif Jackson wrote:
Ok, so you are using thread pools to implement persistent connections.
I would still like to hear more details about the 60% speedup of the
threaded pop3 daemon vs the non-threaded. Exactly what was 60% faster?
I still think that the Multi-Process Model can be just as
