Fastream Technologies wrote:
> What I tried to explain was that if your program is TCP/IP-dense,
> then in order to take advantage of multi-cores, you MUST code MT.

That's true, but does that neccessarily mean that you MUST run socket
communication in multiple threads? I can think of many other bottlenecks
that could benefit from MT.

--
Arno Garrels [TeamICS]
http://www.overbyte.be/eng/overbyte/teamics.html
  

> 
> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Fastream Technologies
> Software IQ: Innovation & Quality
> www.fastream.com | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Tel: +90-312-223-2830
> Join IQWF Server Yahoo group at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IQWFServer Join IQ Reverse Proxy Yahoo
> group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IQReverseProxy
-- 
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

Reply via email to