Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:43:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:43:46 -0500 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:48628 "EHLO wf-rch.cirr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:43:46 -0500 Message-ID: <3E31C3FA.1060302@acm.org> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:53:46 -0600 From: Corey Minyard User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021204 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Mielke CC: Dan Kegel , Mark Hahn , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: debate on 700 threads vs asynchronous code References: <3E30F79D.6050709@kegel.com> <20030124082610.GA12781@mark.mielke.cc> In-Reply-To: <20030124082610.GA12781@mark.mielke.cc> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.71.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mark Mielke wrote: >>And, for what it's worth, programmer productivity is sometimes >>more important than all the above. I happen to work >>at a place where performance is worth a lot of extra effort, >>but other shops prefer to throw hardware at the problem and >>not worry about that last 10%. >> >> > >Definately an argument for the one thread per connection model. :-) > I would disagree. One thread per connection is easier to conceptually understand. In my experience, an event-driven model (which is what you end up with if you use one or a few threads) is actually easier to correctly implement and it tends to make your code more modular and portable. -Corey - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/