From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 11 01:22:14 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 328F716A41F for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:22:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dopplecoder@gmail.com) Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.204]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9772443D48 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:22:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dopplecoder@gmail.com) Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 14so194486nzn for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:22:10 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=IpLfZNqv+05NM2VdNW8JsIoLTGsWkAqglK1cw4W3hhrcUjx6c9Il5hUs6Z4obcHCpDlsNSxDDo8dZwbhO3FqW2AqxKM8luopHEM68VfmVYsIEWMiCHHnuICEdxmTZRHbV2+PR2d1ZZIdR84xaSFnDB5lI/uJ9DK7bE3DAwhPav0= Received: by 10.36.48.6 with SMTP id v6mr1268158nzv; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:22:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.128.17 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:22:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <45d750d20508101822746c51e3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:22:10 -0400 From: Aaron Peterson To: FreeBSD Questions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Subject: threading - good, bad, ugly? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:22:14 -0000 It used to be that lots of people told me threaded applications didn't run efficiently on FreeBSD because the native threading libraries were not very efficient. I remember some work being done on them for the 5.x series though, and am wondering if this is still any issue to be concerned about at all? MySQL performance was the thing people harped on the most IIRC... Anyway, I was just curious about the status of this. Perhaps there was never any issue and it was all talk. I wouldn't know :-) Aaron