Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 21:52:33 +0400 From: "Andrew P." <infofarmer@gmail.com> To: Dinesh Nair <dinesh@alphaque.com> Cc: Olaf Greve <o.greve@axis.nl>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Which MySQL version best to use and with/without linux threads? Message-ID: <cb5206420510031052u3a98cd16j3eb2156ad160923@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4341400E.5040706@alphaque.com> References: <ED4C536E-48C1-11D9-B2C4-000A2791B6EC@illusionart.com> <1102494183.41b6b9e726b2f@www.domainfactory-webmail.de> <433D3C12.6020104@axis.nl> <cb5206420509300908t51b49b1ds777d89af75de139f@mail.gmail.com> <4341400E.5040706@alphaque.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/3/05, Dinesh Nair <dinesh@alphaque.com> wrote: > On 10/01/05 00:08 Andrew P. said the following: > > linuxthreads were only important on FreeBSD 4.x. > > Starting with 5.x we have a more efficient threading > > model. Extensive testing did not reveal any significant > > is this definitive, i.e. that on 5.x linuxthreads are worse off than nati= ve > freebsd threads ? i'm not trying to be a troll, but over on the asterisk > mailing lists, we're in the midst of discussing if /usr/ports/net/asteris= k > should be using linuxthreads or pthreads by default. on 4.x (which i'm > still on), linuxthreads has oodles better performance than native pthread= s, > but i havent really done any testing on 5.x or 6.x. > > any advice here would be much appreciated. > > -- > Regards, /\_/\ "All dogs go to heaven." > dinesh@alphaque.com (0 0) http://www.alphaque.com/ > +=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D----oOO--(_)--OOo----=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D+ > | for a in past present future; do = | > | for b in clients employers associates relatives neighbours pets; do = | > | echo "The opinions here in no way reflect the opinions of my $a $b." = | > | done; done = | > +=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D+ > Yes, it's definitely so. Google for a few minutes and you'll see it for yourself. Stick with native threads.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb5206420510031052u3a98cd16j3eb2156ad160923>