Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:16:40 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Butenhof on Solaris 1:1 vs M:N Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10311061011130.9580-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I found this interesting take by David Butenhof on Sun's choice of the 1:1 model over the M:N model: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=M+x+N+group:comp.programming.threads&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=3f1e86d9%40usenet01.boi.hp.com&rnum=3 "Yes, it is hard to get M:N working right, though there are real advantages. (System Software development is not generally dedicated to the principle of avoiding "hard" problems, after all.) But the history of Sun's trouble with M:N isn't nearly as much technical as political. Even when developers tried to address design problems, they weren't allowed. So, yes, giving up on M:N probably was the best course, for Sun. M:N isn't something that can be done halfway -- you either commit to the whole thing and follow through, or you're better off not trying. Unlike Solaris, the Tru64 UNIX M:N scheduling model was actually designed to work, and does. It (like all else) isn't perfect, but it scales, it supports detailed and effective debugging, and it's cleanly and deeply integrated with the kernel." -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10311061011130.9580-100000>