From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72A78BBAF for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:27:03 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAE+adkjAXQIm/2dsb2JhbACwGQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.30,343,1212357600"; d="scan'208";a="27224718" Received: from discorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.38]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 11 Jul 2008 08:27:03 +0200 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m6B6R2H7005865 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:27:02 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnECANaZdkhQW+UCgWdsb2JhbACSLgEBECAEnTE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.30,343,1212357600"; d="scan'208";a="15015817" Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) ([80.91.229.2]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 11 Jul 2008 08:27:01 +0200 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KHC5p-0003nH-QB for caml-list@inria.fr; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:26:57 +0000 Received: from ks300734.kimsufi.com ([91.121.65.225]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:26:57 +0000 Received: from sylvain by ks300734.kimsufi.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:26:57 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: caml-list@inria.fr From: Sylvain Le Gall Subject: Re: thousands of CPU cores Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:26:44 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1215717356.24773.17.camel@flake.lan.gerd-stolpmann.de> <1215732802.48769c4277e80@webmail.in-berlin.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ks300734.kimsufi.com User-Agent: slrn/pre0.9.9-102 (Linux) Sender: news X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 4876FD36.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; le-gall:01 bandel:01 in-berlin:01 threads:01 wrote:01 unix:01 oliver:01 oliver:01 usual:06 linux:07 thousands:91 memory:09 selling:89 environment:10 vendor:88 On 10-07-2008, Oliver Bandel wrote: > Using multi-processes instead of multi-threads is the > usual way on Unix, and it has a lot of advantages. > Threads-apologetes often say, threads are the ultimative > technology... but processes have the advantage of encapsulation > of the wohole environment of the program. > There is also the fact that using multi process allow you to go further than the memory limit per process (3GB for Linux/ 1GB for Windows). With the actual increase of amount of RAM, this can be an issue. For some time, most of the vendor are selling computer with at least 1GB and often 2GB or more. Regards, Sylvain Le Gall