Tres Seaver wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Jim Fulton wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2006-10-6 12:21 -0400:
We would have a use case for this, too.
We've started moving toward just using a single application thread
(with many processes). There isn't really much advantage in running
threads if you have multiple processes.
Apart from sharing resources, such as the cache....
That isn't a benefit of multiple threads. It is a way to
mitigate the cost of multiple threads. In the presence of the
GIL there is no throughput benefit in running multiple threads.
The only benefit of multiple threads is that it is somewhat
less likely that expensive requests will block inexpensive ones.
Assuming that you aren't disk or RAM constrained, I'll agree that
running multiple processes is more likely to win, especially on
multi-CPU machines. However, most sites which have such needs might do
better to have a single, *large* cache, than many smaller ones;
swapping will kill any benefit obtained from better parallelism.
Sure. I would definitely not run more processes than processors
(assuming that the processes are identical). And I wouldn't
use more than one thread unless responsiveness was an issue, as
it sometimes is.
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org