From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat May 22 11:13:20 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41BCD16A4CE
	for <freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 22 May 2004 11:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD2BD43D3F
	for <freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 22 May 2004 11:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i4MICW8Q018074;
	Sat, 22 May 2004 14:12:32 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 14:12:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com
To: =?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>
In-Reply-To: <xzp4qq8h6ju.fsf@dwp.des.no>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10405221409080.17110-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Why is MySQL nearly twice as fast on Linux?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 18:13:20 -0000

On Sat, 22 May 2004, [iso-8859-1] Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote:

> Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> writes:
> > Yet another also, MySQL uses scope system threads by default
> > instead of scope process threads.  Scope process threads seem
> > to perform better.
>=20
> Excuse me for digressing, but do you threads guys have some kind of
> occupational nerve damage which prevents you from using correct
> grammar?  Why does everybody insist on talking about "scope system
> threads" and "scope process threads" instead of system-scope and
> process-scope threads?

Sorry, probably because that's how POSIX defines them
(PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM, PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS).

--=20
Dan Eischen