* [9fans] grist for the "synchronous vs. asynchronous" mill
@ 2009-03-24 12:51 roger peppe
2009-03-24 13:34 ` erik quanstrom
2009-03-28 3:48 ` Roman Shaposhnik
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: roger peppe @ 2009-03-24 12:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
http://www.classhat.com/tymaPaulMultithread.pdf
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] grist for the "synchronous vs. asynchronous" mill
2009-03-24 12:51 [9fans] grist for the "synchronous vs. asynchronous" mill roger peppe
@ 2009-03-24 13:34 ` erik quanstrom
2009-03-24 14:29 ` ron minnich
2009-03-28 3:48 ` Roman Shaposhnik
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: erik quanstrom @ 2009-03-24 13:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
On Tue Mar 24 08:54:12 EDT 2009, rogpeppe@gmail.com wrote:
> http://www.classhat.com/tymaPaulMultithread.pdf
seems more like grist for the task vs. process
debate. not that the outcome is in doubt.
- erik
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] grist for the "synchronous vs. asynchronous" mill
2009-03-24 13:34 ` erik quanstrom
@ 2009-03-24 14:29 ` ron minnich
2009-03-24 14:41 ` erik quanstrom
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: ron minnich @ 2009-03-24 14:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 6:34 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> On Tue Mar 24 08:54:12 EDT 2009, rogpeppe@gmail.com wrote:
>> http://www.classhat.com/tymaPaulMultithread.pdf
>
> seems more like grist for the task vs. process
> debate. not that the outcome is in doubt.
except that they only went to 1000 threads. Once we hit more than
that, linux fell over badly for us on even a big machine.
I guess the java threads are much better than posix threads? I don't
know. I just know that we've had to go back to AIO instead of a posix
threads-based tool.
ron
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] grist for the "synchronous vs. asynchronous" mill
2009-03-24 14:29 ` ron minnich
@ 2009-03-24 14:41 ` erik quanstrom
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: erik quanstrom @ 2009-03-24 14:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 6:34 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> > On Tue Mar 24 08:54:12 EDT 2009, rogpeppe@gmail.com wrote:
> >> http://www.classhat.com/tymaPaulMultithread.pdf
> >
> > seems more like grist for the task vs. process
> > debate. not that the outcome is in doubt.
>
> except that they only went to 1000 threads. Once we hit more than
> that, linux fell over badly for us on even a big machine.
i assume it didn't fall over uniformly. what was the weak point?
scheduling?
- erik
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] grist for the "synchronous vs. asynchronous" mill
2009-03-24 12:51 [9fans] grist for the "synchronous vs. asynchronous" mill roger peppe
2009-03-24 13:34 ` erik quanstrom
@ 2009-03-28 3:48 ` Roman Shaposhnik
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Roman Shaposhnik @ 2009-03-28 3:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
On Mar 24, 2009, at 5:51 AM, roger peppe wrote:
> http://www.classhat.com/tymaPaulMultithread.pdf
Java has its own share of issues when it comes to multithreading, I'd
rather see a presentation like that from the sort of guys who do
VoIP servers in C/C++ and things like that.
Thanks,
Roman.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-03-28 3:48 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-03-24 12:51 [9fans] grist for the "synchronous vs. asynchronous" mill roger peppe
2009-03-24 13:34 ` erik quanstrom
2009-03-24 14:29 ` ron minnich
2009-03-24 14:41 ` erik quanstrom
2009-03-28 3:48 ` Roman Shaposhnik
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).