Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:23:46 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Alan Tegel <alan.tegel@openwave.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Question about Posix Threads Message-ID: <20010424092346.M1790@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <MAEIIMNAFOBDOMCEDBGGGEFPFDAA.alan.tegel@openwave.com>; from alan.tegel@openwave.com on Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 07:29:21AM -0700 References: <MAEIIMNAFOBDOMCEDBGGGEFPFDAA.alan.tegel@openwave.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Alan Tegel <alan.tegel@openwave.com> [010424 07:29] wrote: > How well does FreeBSD 4.3 do with Posix Threads? > > This is a question I posted to a news group. > > Hello. I work for a unix performance and capacity group. owever, we have > had some dismal performance from RedHat 6.2. The question that I would > like to know is how well does FreeBSD support Posix threads and is there > any caveats in perfromance and stability? Note, we have the ability to > push Unix (whatever version) to the extremes (very fun and very insane > job).... > > Any comments would be helpful. How is performance dismal under redhat? FreeBSD should do a really good job of running thousands of threads as long as you don't have too much disk IO since all the threads are multiplexed into a single process, if you have an IO intensive program FreeBSD threads will probably not help you all that much. There are plans on replacing the FreeBSD threads library with a multiplexed userland<->kernel scheme in the near future. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [alfred@freebsd.org] Represent yourself, show up at BABUG http://www.babug.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010424092346.M1790>