Alright, thank you.
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:17 AM, Goswin von Brederlow <[email protected]>wrote: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 02:44:18PM -0800, Cosmo Harrigan wrote: > > Hi Goswin / Brandon, > > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Goswin von Brederlow <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > Don't create threads like that. Create a thread pool of handlers that > > > keep their sockets connected and dispatch events to them. That solves > > > your problem and also cuts down on the (rather long) time to start a > > > thread per event. > > > > > > > In that approach, how would you suggest choosing the number of listener > > threads to create? > > Assuming the events don't block or otherwies run for a long time I > would make one per core and maybe even set the cpu affinity to keep > each on their own core. It's like you can run more than number of > cores in parallel. > > MfG > Goswin > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
