Oded Arbel said: >b) Even assuming they are right, you still want to choose MySQL over JVM >space databases, because Java and Java databases are very much thread >enabled and create and destroy many threads. But do they do it mainly within the OS or within the JVM? Top or PS doesn't show individual processes within the JVM. I'm not clear on how Java processes/threads relate to OS processes/threads. I'd like to know where/how exactly Java threads are started/killed on Hotspot in OS X. Doesn't java threads mainly intercommunicate within the JVM? Context switches? Is it really a completely dead end that minimizing the OS threading in Mac OS X and keeping threads within JVM could improve performance? Of course the Java DB in question would have to be somewhat similar to MySQL in performance, but possibly the Java DB could perform better with many connections as that is where MySQL on OS X breaks down according to anandtech.
>MySQL OTOH uses very >little threads - essentially it only creates a new thread to handle a >new client, and even then a single thread handles several clients >before another thread is required. But according to the anandtech article OS X is the only platform where performance breaks down after raising the amount of connections. So it would seem until Apple fixes the performance problems - which certainly may take a while-, ways to use databases without creating many expensive (in theory) OS threads could be desirable. Obviously the only way to know for sure if this is true would be to test load MySQL on ones own server and also test load a Java database. Do anyone know of anyone who have done load testing on OS X and published the results? I'm on OS X Server 10.2 so even older tests are of interest. (I'm going to google it now of course) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
