From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Aug 12 02:19:36 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id CAA10384
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 02:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jabber.paco.odessa.ua (jabber.paco.odessa.ua [193.124.52.20])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA10297
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 02:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from igor@localhost) by jabber.paco.odessa.ua (8.7.1/8.6.10/01) id MAA21871 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:12:34 +0300 (UKD)
From: Igor Khasilev <igor@jabber.paco.odessa.ua>
Message-Id: <199608120912.MAA21871@jabber.paco.odessa.ua>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. NT Stability
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:12:33 +0300 (UKD)
In-Reply-To: <199608120651.AA091782688@fakir.india.hp.com> from "A JOSEPH KOSHY" at Aug 12, 96 12:21:27 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> So my question is: how does NT behave when it has to schedule between a 
> large number of processes each with its own process context, VM, page tables 
> etc?  Conversely how does the unix program behave when linked with -lpthreads
> and with `fork()' replaced with `pthread_create()'?

One bad thing with user level threads (actualy pthreads that I used):
sheduler which runs on user lever ALWAYS consume processor time (even wnen
all threads sleeps), and permanenly keep part of code in memory. If it is
true (maybe I misunderstand something), then pthreads is bad solution for
heavy loaded systems.

					Igor