Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 23:38:10 -0400 From: kriston@ibm.net (Kriston J. Rehberg) To: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD A Solution For Business Message-ID: <7442-Sat23May1998233810-0400-kriston@ibm.net> In-Reply-To: <199805230527.WAA03120@osprey.grizzly.com> References: <01bd85e0$2dccb1c0$f820aace@eliot.pacbell.net> <199805230337.UAA02883@osprey.grizzly.com> <3626-Sat23May1998005302-0400-kriston@ibm.net> <199805230527.WAA03120@osprey.grizzly.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mark Diekhans writes: >The rational here is that user-level threads eliminate much of the process >context switching overhead. Not having seen or done performance measurements, >I can't say if its significant to a http server or not, I discussed it with >people in charge of selecting systems who felt a threaded server was required >(but then again, they didn't have any measurements to back it up). Personally, >I would just add another pentium running apache if the first one got bogged >down. Yeah, but I thought the problem is that you don't have a guarantee that the scheduler will run your Apache process on the second Pentium. I don't tend to believe that merely adding processors automatically makes everything faster. Sure, if your system starts and stops lots of processes, you will get an advantage. But if it's a persistent process like a web server, is there really a guarantee that it will go onto another processor on your system? But as for the user-level threads in FreeBSD, can they be spread out over >1 processor, or does that require kernel threads? Kris -- Kriston J. Rehberg AOL: Kriston http://kriston.net/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7442-Sat23May1998233810-0400-kriston>