On 11/07/2010 21:43, BCS wrote:
Hello div0,
On 11/07/2010 20:00, BCS wrote:
Hello div0,
The rule of thumb is don't bother spawning more threads than you
have cpus. You're just wasting resources mostly.
You REALLY don't want more threads trying to run than you have cores.
Threads in a wait state, are less of an issue, but they still use up
resources.
I think you're going a bit far there.
In what way?
Sometimes it just makes your program design easier if you fork a process
/ spawn a thread; than trying to manage a thread pool and allocating
work to a fixed number of threads. Programmer time is more expensive
than cpu time and it depends who's paying the bill.
(hmm, haven't you said that before?)
And In re-reading my post, I noticed it can be read it two ways. The way
I intended it, is as a "yes and" statement: while often there is little
to be gained by having more threads than cpus/cores, there is almost
always nothing to be gained by having more thread trying to do stuff at
the same time than you have cpus/cores to run them on.
Personally I'd never use more threads than cores as a program design,
but I'm a performance whore. ;)
--
My enormous talent is exceeded only by my outrageous laziness.
http://www.ssTk.co.uk
