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(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026