Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 22:57:16 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Kruk <meshko@cs.brandeis.edu> To: <freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: jdk1.3.1p5 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0112092246470.12141-100000@daedalus.cs.brandeis.edu> In-Reply-To: <20011209223635.A1152@absinthe>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I'm signing under each word Dylan wrote here; I completely agree with the importance of native threading (to the degree to which I can understand what it means :) I have a couple of questions which, I hope, might help me understand this better... so if you have a second please clarify it to me... a) How far is the port from HotSpot now that native threads are working (or almost working)? b) Is my understanding that Linux port still has "process per thread" model correct? c) FreeBSD native threads are not "process per thread", right? d) If c and d are more or less true, does it mean that we should see better performance/more robust threading on FreeBSD than on Linux as of patchset 6? Or will it really kick in only when kernel threads are fully implemented in 5.0? Sorry about my ignorance :/ > I can speak only on behalf of me and the companies I try to deploy > FreeBSD at as, in some cases, Java application servers -- native > threading is *Very* important... and further I appreciate all the work > you guys are doing towards this. > > I'd contribute directly to the project if I knew how, but, as it stands > the best you can expect from me are bug reports when I find them. > > But rest assured there are a lot of us out here trying to run FreeBSD as > a good Java platform, and we're actually doing it in production > scenarios, despite the gap between BSD and Linux in this regard. > > But without HotSpot we can't scale as cheaply. > > Cheers, To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.33.0112092246470.12141-100000>