From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 21 21:50:55 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D15537B401 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:50:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (chesapeake.net [205.130.220.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5590143FBF for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:50:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from localhost (jroberson@localhost) by mail.chesapeake.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3M4oqq66523; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 00:50:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 00:50:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Roberson To: Terry Lambert In-Reply-To: <3EA4C06B.F607710C@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20030422004950.R76635-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: threads@freebsd.org cc: Daniel Eischen Subject: Re: libkse -> libpthreads X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 04:50:55 -0000 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" >