From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 26 01:42:05 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D107D37B404 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:42:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from energyhq.homeip.net (213-97-200-73.uc.nombres.ttd.es [213.97.200.73]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6857043FA3 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:42:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from flynn@energyhq.homeip.net) Received: from christine.energyhq.tk (christine.energyhq.tk [192.168.100.1]) by energyhq.homeip.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 64F03AF584; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:42:03 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:42:26 +0100 From: Miguel Mendez To: Lev Walkin Message-Id: <20030326104226.3ff7686b.flynn@energyhq.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <3E817469.4030403@netli.com> References: <3E815D53.6010404@dynaweb.ru> <20030326091845.36425fad.flynn@energyhq.homeip.net> <3E817469.4030403@netli.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.11claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) X-Face: 1j}k*2E>Y\+C~E|/wehi[:dCM,{N7/uE3o# P,{t7gA/qnovFDDuyQV.1hdT7&#d)q"xY33}{_GS>kk'S{O]nE$A`T|\4&p\&mQyexOLb8}FO Subject: Re: Some specific questions about 5.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:42:08 -0000 --=.GA?d2FPKTHzZtJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:35:37 -0800 Lev Walkin wrote: Hi, > What about Solaris' migration towards 1:1 model from the N:M one they > had supported for years already? Who are insane, Solaris folks (moving > towards Linux) or Free/NetBSD ones (migrating to the old Solaris' > behavior)? I haven't done Solaris development for a while, but iirc, Sun's statement on the matter is that developers have to consider which paradigm fits their application best. Solaris supports both schemes, 1:1 and N:M. Certain applications benefit from the former, other from the latter. I don't they're going to drop N:M anytime soon. I think the reason why Linux does 1:1 is that it started as a hack of the process creation code. Implementing a real N:M system is more complicated. Perhaps it should be interesting to study in which cases a 1:1 threading system is better. Cheers, -- Miguel Mendez - flynn@energyhq.homeip.net GPG Public Key :: http://energyhq.homeip.net/files/pubkey.txt EnergyHQ :: http://www.energyhq.tk Tired of Spam? -> http://www.trustic.com --=.GA?d2FPKTHzZtJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (NetBSD) iD8DBQE+gXYGnLctrNyFFPERAq1eAJ9/94Zpqk+27E8MW48LZ95aC09LjwCfeiIL NITdCz6U2FaBAgpT31OvAw0= =MLBo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=.GA?d2FPKTHzZtJ--