Re: [GD-Linux] Comparing thread implementations

[Parveen K. <pk...@al...>]

On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 15:02, Brian Hook wrote:
> I'm trying to do some basic research on the relative performance of=20
> threading implementations of the various like-Unix operating systems.=20
>  There's a lot of conventional wisdom out there that Linux's=20
> threading implementation sucks, and that both Solaris and Irix have=20
> significantly superior implementations.
>=20

There are two issues here.  Creating threads and switching between
threads.  The new scheduler and pthread library is supposed to help.
http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=3D422

For some anecdotal, non-scientific impressions.  My friend and I both
run Gentoo boxes with comparable processors and RAM.  Gentoo provides
2.4 kernel sources with the new scheduler patched in.  I use the new
scheduler my friend does not.  I don't have to fool around with nice and
renice when I'm compiling apps in the background.  KDE is still
responsive when top claims that the CPU is running at 100%.

However, this is on the desktop and I get the impression that you will
be using this box as a server.

> So, does anyone know the state of thread support on these operating=20
> systems or can someone point to a decent analysis of the relative=20
> pros/cons.  An entry level 1U Sparc server is only $1000, and used=20
> Irix boxes aren't too horribly expensive, so I think cost isn't going=20
> to be that big a factor.

Apache claims that they can fill a 10Mbps connection with something
ridiculously slow as a P133.  But you'll need something faster if you're
gonna use php, perl or something else.

Being in the game industry, there are advantages in choosing Linux.  You
can run UT and Quake servers.

Sorry, that I couldn't be more helpful.  What services are you wanting
to run?

PK
pk...@al...
http://www.sfu.ca/~pkaler