What about memory consumption? What about file descriptor
consumption? Aren't (clone<->library)-multiplexed threads more
system-friendly in this regard? I recall Larry pointing this out
the other day advising an individual not to write a thousand-thread
windowing system.
Right, if you are using a 1,000 thread application you have other
problems. There are people who aren't trying to use thousands of
threads yet still think the user+kernel level thread pool library
scheme is desirable, this was the target of my commentary.
I'm far from an expert on the topic, but to say that the
kernel-based solution is the only way to go and then to reccommend
against threading because of the costs which result from basing it
on clone() seems a tad unsightly to me.
Threading is good, use the kernel facilities, and don't over do it.
People who think they need thousands of threads really don't, they
just need to heavily rethink their design.
---------------------------------------------////
Yow! 11.26 MB/s remote host TCP bandwidth & ////
199 usec remote TCP latency over 100Mb/s ////
ethernet. Beat that! ////
-----------------------------------------////__________ o
David S. Miller, davem@caip.rutgers.edu /_____________/ / // /_/ ><