>>>>> "Jimmy" == Jimmy Kaplowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jimmy> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 02:40:05PM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote: >> >>>>> "Jimmy" == Jimmy Kaplowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Jimmy> I can't find the exact messages for some of these examples of their Jimmy> experience, but one post mentioned that the poster had implemented Jimmy> applications using hundreds or thousands of threads; >> >> How can this be considered anything else than an evidence of mental >> illness ? (I purposedly avoid attributing it to malice). >> >> Or was this simply a pointless "benchmark" ? Jimmy> What I meant by mentioning it was that this poster actually seemed to Jimmy> have a legitimately useful (to him) application that legitimately needed Jimmy> lots of threads, and getting it to work well on his development or test Jimmy> system must have required a fair amount of familiarity with threads Jimmy> and/or his OS's implementation of threads. And what I meant is that anyone writing an application with hundreds or thousands of threads should either choose another field or seek professional help. (Well, he/she might be the first one to make the breakthrough of finding such legitimately useful application, but I'd rather take the risk of wrongfully accusing him/her in incompetence). That's, of course, wrt. to the usefulness of the scheduler activations idea or, for that matter, of any N:M (N != 1 && M != 1) threading architecture. Jimmy> I believe the poster was Jimmy> offering it to Robert as a way to test his eventual port of a threads Jimmy> library to glibc-on-BSD to see if it performs well and is thread-safe Jimmy> for thread-intensive applications such as his. (To give you an idea of Jimmy> this poster's standards, he stated that he considered all versions of Jimmy> Linux prior to the existence of NPTL not to be thread-safe for his Jimmy> purposes.) What's the point in demonstrating how fast can you do nothing ? ~velco
