> theo wrote: > >You can do that, but I'm not sure if performance is getting any > >better (rather the opposite). > > I thought it had something to do with the performance. > If I wanted to get that many threads (up to 50) any other means of > doing that without degrading the performance? I read about Thread > pooling for servers, maybe a way to do that for a client?
Major problem is not count of thread, but shared network bandwidth. If you have 100Mbps LAN, then with 50 threads you have only 2Mbps per client. If it is internet connections and your internet connection have 10Mbps for example, then one client have 200kbps bandwidth only. In many discussions you can read about programming of servers with 1000 clients and what programming technology is the best for this.. and many programmers saying 'thread per connection is bad'. But think about it... have you bandwidth for reasonable speed with this count of clients? In 95% not, and even you have 1000 threads, many of these threads just sleping and waiting for data, because data comming slowly. So, technical limit is not count of thread, but reasonable useability due limited network bandwidth. -- Lukas Gebauer. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://synapse.ararat.cz/ - Ararat Synapse - TCP/IP Lib. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ synalist-public mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/synalist-public
