Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 22:04:05 -0700 From: "Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com" <michaelv@HeadCandy.com> To: dennis@etinc.com (Dennis) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. NT Stability Message-ID: <199608130504.WAA19610@MindBender.HeadCandy.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 12 Aug 96 13:39:31 -0400. <199608121739.NAA16750@etinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>> > 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
>>Only when *really* poorly implemented. Otherwise it waits in select(2) to
[...]
>This is all very nice, but on a macro level NT has two very obvious
>problems to consider:
>1) Its rather new...
>2) It was written by Microsoft
And, how do these affect NT's performance? (Or, threading vs. process
context switching, in general?)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael L. VanLoon michaelv@HeadCandy.com
--< Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free un*x >--
NetBSD working ports: 386+PC, Mac 68k, Amiga, Atari 68k, HP300, Sun3,
Sun4/4c/4m, DEC MIPS, DEC Alpha, PC532, VAX, MVME68k, arm32...
NetBSD ports in progress: PICA, others...
Roll your own Internet access -- Seattle People's Internet cooperative.
If you're in the Seattle area, ask me how.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608130504.WAA19610>