> I also have a complaint to whoever said that 100 > idling threads is harmless. > Not on windows it isn't, certainly not in java on > windows. Threads are rpocesses and have horrible > overhead.
Threads are not processes ... they're threads. If you look in Windows Task Manager, for example, and click on the processes tab, you don't see 100+ freenet process. You do see one javaw.exe process and, if you do "View / Select Columns..." and tick Thread count, you'll see it has an ugly buttload of threads. Unfortunately, as far as I'm aware, all the cool thread / fiber / io completion management available in win32 isn't accessible from Java (unless someone can point me to documentary evidence to the contrary that states clearly the particular (portable) Java code needed to set up a Win32 IOCompletionPort) Threads on Java on Windows have horrible overhead but, as I see it, that's the JVM's fault, and not really a fault of Java itself, and certainly not a fault of the freenet project. But I agree that it does suck. A native Win32 application can happily spawn 100+ threads and not get bogged down in its own underwear. But for I/O management, having millions of most-likely-idle threads is NOT the way to go (certainly on Win32 anyway, because there's far better ways to do things). d _______________________________________________ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
