On Apr 1, 2011, at 7:49 AM, Jonas Drewsen wrote: > On 01/04/11 01.07, dsimcha wrote: >> >> >> Again forgive my naiveness, as most of my experience with concurrency is >> concurrency to implement parallelism, not concurrency for its own sake. >> Shouldn't >> 32,000 threads be more than enough for anything? I can't imagine what kinds >> of >> programs would really need this level of concurrency, or how bad performance >> on >> any specific thread would be when you have this many. Right now in my Task >> Manager the program with the most threads is explorer.exe, with 28. > > There doesn't have to be a thread for each socket. Actually many servers have > very few threads with many sockets each. 32000 sockets is not unimaginable > for certain server loads e.g. websockets or game servers. But I know it is > not that common.
Hopefully not at all common. With that level of concurrency the process will spend more time context switching than executing code.
