Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:28:26 +0300 From: Panagiotis Astithas <past@noc.ntua.gr> To: bfg@noviforum.si Cc: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Windows 2000 "Advanced" Server Message-ID: <3F4DE75A.4050109@noc.ntua.gr> In-Reply-To: <3F4DE07E.6020306@noviforum.si> References: <20030828090512.GB83970@starjuice.net> <20030828090852.GC83970@starjuice.net> <20030828094833.GA82970@chihiro.leafy.idv.tw> <3F4DD228.20202@noviforum.si> <20030828101714.GF83970@starjuice.net> <3F4DE07E.6020306@noviforum.si>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Branko F. Grac(nar wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > | > | These are not meaningful numbers. The program wasn't designed to test > | thread instantiation performance, and is pretty much guaranteed to do a > | shit job of it. :-) > | > | You need enough sleep time to ensure that all the threads are active at > | once. > > $ time java TestThreads 50000 10000 > TestThreads: successfully fired 50000 threads > TestThreads: waited 10000 milliseconds for all threads to complete > > real 2m41.536s > user 2m8.008s > sys 0m5.261s You specify a sleep time of 10000 msec = 10 sec and your program takes 2min+42sec = 162sec to execute. Therefore one would assume that some of the threads finished before others started, thus failing to stress the limits of thread allocation by the system. Why don't you try an insane timeout, like 900000; Cheers, -- Panagiotis Astithas Electrical & Computer Engineer, PhD Network Management Center National Technical University of Athens, Greece
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F4DE75A.4050109>