Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:51:32 -0700 From: Jon Mini <mini@freebsd.org> To: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ten thousand small processes Message-ID: <20030627035132.GQ55678@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <20030626022722.62942.qmail@cr.yp.to> References: <009901c33b17$1a5090c0$10d4473e@PETEX31> <B4546868-A75F-11D7-B6EF-000393754B1C@vangelderen.org> <20030626022722.62942.qmail@cr.yp.to>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
D. J. Bernstein [djb@cr.yp.to] wrote : > I want separate processes for the memory protection. Each process is > chrooted under its own uid, so it can't write to disk except through > supplied file descriptors, and it can't hit other processes. (If I had a > portable way to cut off other communication channels, such as creating > new sockets, I'd do that too.) Have you looked into our jail(8) mechanism? Considiner your resource conumtion needs, it is also too heavy-weight. > protection; I realize that it's hard to do better than that. But I'm not > willing to casually piss away large fractions of a gigabyte of RAM. Not > this decade, anyway. Unfortunately, FreeBSD is the wrong operating system for you. > I'm willing to sacrifice one page per process for the sake of memory > The lack of memory protection is exactly why I can't use threads. It's > also why I'm not surprised to hear that processes are _slightly_ less > efficient than threads. But something is seriously wrong if processes > are _much_ less efficient than threads. There are many other contributing factors that have been mentioned, but you are choosing to ignore. I'm afraid I can't comunicate with you effectively if you are going to ignore the facts. My sincerest apologies, -- Jonathan Mini <mini@freebsd.org> http://www.freebsd.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030627035132.GQ55678>