From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <d62ad189b348c5e18145125af96b9b07@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:41:43 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <13426df10903240729s41bfc3d8i5bf7d5a436da14f@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] grist for the "synchronous vs. asynchronous" mill
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c26d5c3c-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> 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