From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 26 20:51:33 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3432637B401 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:51:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA3FB44003 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:51:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from baka@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1921) id B492B2ED446; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:51:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:51:32 -0700 From: Jon Mini To: "D. J. Bernstein" Message-ID: <20030627035132.GQ55678@elvis.mu.org> References: <009901c33b17$1a5090c0$10d4473e@PETEX31> <20030626022722.62942.qmail@cr.yp.to> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030626022722.62942.qmail@cr.yp.to> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ten thousand small processes X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 03:51:33 -0000 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 http://www.freebsd.org/