Re: Thread discussion

Dann Corbit wrote:
> Especially this comment:
> 
>     http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=35441&cid=3829377
> 
> ==================================================================
> Which is pretty much pointless MS bashing and incorrect.

Is there such a thing.  ;-)

Anyway, the analysis of Solaris is meaningless.  It is in the same camp
as NT as far as process creation bloat.  I have always said threads help
on NT _and_ Solaris.

On Solaris, the thread popularity is there _because_ the OS is so slow
at process creation (SVr$ bloat), not necessarily because people really
want threads on Solaris.

> >NT Spawner (spawnl):            120 Seconds (12.0 millisecond/spawn)
> >Linux Spawner (fork+exec):       57 Seconds ( 6.0 millisecond/spawn)
> >
> >Linux Process Create (fork):     10 Seconds ( 1.0 millisecond/proc)
> >
> >NT Thread Create                  9 Seconds ( 0.9 millisecond/thread)
> >Linux Thread Create               3 Seconds ( 0.3 millisecond/thread)

The Linux case is more interesting.  The same guy had timings for thread
vs. process of 6usecs vs. 4usecs, but states that it really isn't even a
blip on the performance radar, and the coding required to do the stuff
in a threaded manner is a headache:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/05/1457231&tid=106

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026