On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Brandon Black <[email protected]> wrote: > Right, so either way an argument based on 2 threads per core is irrelevant, > which is the argument you made in point (2) earlier. It doesn't make sense > to argue about the benefits of threads under a layout that's know to be > suboptimal in larger ways. The threads-vs-procs debate is about 1 > thread-per-core vs 1-proc-per-core, not N-threads-per-core vs > N-procs-per-core.
I'm wasn't arguing about the benefits of 2 threads per core, nor am I going to use 2 threads per core. I was asking about it for educational reasons. This is not a discussion or a debate, it is a learning opportunity. -- Phusion | Ruby & Rails deployment, scaling and tuning solutions Web: http://www.phusion.nl/ E-mail: [email protected] Chamber of commerce no: 08173483 (The Netherlands) _______________________________________________ libev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libev
