Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 00:50:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> Subject: Re: libkse -> libpthreads Message-ID: <20030422004950.R76635-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> In-Reply-To: <3EA4C06B.F607710C@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: > It wouldn't. The main issue as far as performance went, and why > we (Novell USG) used processes instead of SVR4 threads, and did > file descriptor table sharing, and shared client context data in > a shared memory segment (8-)) is that SVR4-derived systems without > a unified VM and buffer cache do a lot of page thrashing. Please explain how using processes instead of threads improves page thrashing. > > One of the "innovations" in Solaris 9, if you read the white papers, > is that they reintroduced a seperate buffer cache. It makes sense > that in doing that, they would reintroduce the same performance > problems that came from having a seperate buffer cache in the first > place. > > Probably the correct thing to do instead would have been to introduce > a seperate working set quota on file objects, so a single file being > randomly accessed couldn't LRU out all the other files in the system. > 8-). > > -- Terry > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-threads@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-threads-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030422004950.R76635-100000>