At 03:21 27/07/2005, Mrs. Brisby wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 09:48 -0500, Jay Sprenkle wrote:
> The theory has been proposed that threads aren't better than separate
> processes, or application implemented context switching. Does anyone
> have an experiment that will prove the point either way? It will have
> to be OS specific though, since I'm sure not all thread
> implementations are equal.
This page might be interesting.. http://john.redmood.com/osfastest.html
It shows (pretty conclusively), that 'one process per task' is not the way
to go if you want any sort of performance.
One thread per task is very good
One thread for many tasks is slightly better, with the benefit growing as
more threads are created (up to 300-500 tasks there's not a massive
difference, by the time you get to 1000 tasks there's a 35% benefit to
using one thread for many tasks.
Of course, this assumes a well designed architecture...
But, one process per task is very poor in comparison to the other ways (on
all the platforms they tested) handling only about 5% of load of the 'one
thread for many tasks' architecture.
Paul VPOP3 - Internet Email Server/Gateway
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pscs.co.uk/
