From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:44:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:43:41 -0400 Received: from marine.sonic.net ([208.201.224.37]:21628 "HELO marine.sonic.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:43:32 -0400 X-envelope-info: Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:43:19 -0700 From: Mike Castle To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Why use threads ( was: Alan Cox quote?) Message-ID: <20010620154319.A15561@thune.mrc-home.com> Reply-To: Mike Castle Mail-Followup-To: Mike Castle , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 03:18:58PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > As I said, you don't want to use one thread for each client. You use, say, > 10 threads for the 16,000 clients. That way, if an occasional client > ambushes a thread (say by reading a file off an NFS server or by using some > infrequently used code that was swapped to a busy disk), your server will > keep on humming. This same approach can easily be used by multiple processes. I don't see what is gained by using threads over processes for such an architecture. mrc -- Mike Castle dalgoda@ix.netcom.com www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/ We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan. -- Watchmen fatal ("You are in a maze of twisty compiler features, all different"); -- gcc