Sure but I do not have a serious async server. You can download our MT server from our web site anytime for a test.
Regards, SZ On 10/11/07, Arno Garrels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Fastream Technologies wrote: > > I test my ICS-based MT proxy with 20k connections on our dual-core > > system. It performs 2GBps, local-to-local. So that's one CPU > > performance basically since the tester also uses CPU! I would not > > imagine such performance with single thread. > > Those numbers don't tell me much. I'm missing a serious > comparison between an optimized MT and an optimzed ST server. > One comparison was how many clients can be connected until the > first is being rejected due to a full ListenBackLogQueue. > Another was how long would it take until all clients finished > their concurrent download. > > -- > Arno Garrels [TeamICS] > http://www.overbyte.be/eng/overbyte/teamics.html > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > SZ > > > > > > On 10/11/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> --- QUOTE: SZ > >> If you do not want the ability to use multi-cores for > >> communication threads, > >> then async is the way to go. But IMO, it is an ill > >> design since chipmakers > >> are talking about 64-core CPUs and 10Gbps networks. > >> --- END. > >> > >> Thanks, SZ. At this point I'm not so much concerned > >> about complexity (although, of course, that is a > >> concern), but more about performance and efficiency. > >> I know that the arguments are always against > >> multiple threads because they are harder to debug and > >> synchronize, which is a very valid argument, and one > >> that's biting me in the ass right now, but is that at > >> the cost of a perceivable performance hit? Or is the > >> async component not only simpler to use, but just as > >> fast (or at least not significantly slower)? > >> > >> -dZ. > -- To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list please goto http://www.elists.org/mailman/listinfo/twsocket Visit our website at http://www.overbyte.be
