Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:31:21 -0800 | From | Ben Greear <> | Subject | Re: debate on 700 threads vs asynchronous code |
| |
Lee Chin wrote: > Hi > I am discussing with a few people on different approaches to solving a scale problem I am having, and have gotten vastly different views > > In a nutshell, as far as this debate is concerned, I can say I am writing a web server. > > Now, to cater to 700 clients, I can > a) launch 700 threads that each block on I/O to disk and to the client (in reading and writing on the socket) > > OR > > b) Write an asycnhrounous system with only 2 or three threads where I manage the connections and stack (via setcontext swapcontext etc), which is progromatically a little harder
You could also write something with async non-blocking IO and use NO threads (ie, just a single process), which may greatly simplify the debugging of your program (unless the developer(s) on your project are very good at threaded programming already).
I suspect the async IO will perform better as well, but that is just an un-founded opinion based on not wanting to think about scheduling 700 processes that want to do IO :)
> > Which way will yeild me better performance, considerng both approaches are implemented optimally? > > Thanks > Lee
-- Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> <Ben_Greear AT excite.com> President of Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com ScryMUD: http://scry.wanfear.com http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |