Re: [Chicken-users] rails-like framework

[Shawn Rutledge]

On 4/23/06, John Cowan <address@hidden> wrote:
> Alex Shinn scripsit:
>
> > In the absense of any lies^Wstatis^Wbenchmarks, I'd wager Chicken's
> > thread handling is closer to Erlang than to POSIX threads.  And if you
> > look at the conclusions on that Apache comparison, the author suggests
> > the reason Apache doesn't scale has nothing to do with the Apache code
> > itself, but rather because POSIX threads themselves do not scale.
>
> Well, there's scaling, and then there's scaling.  Lightweight threads
> are wonderful things on uniprocessor machines, but they aren't going
> to be sufficient on multicore boxes, especially not the ones that
> are coming with large numbers of cores.  A way is going to have to
> be found to overcome that problem, or lightweight thread architectures
> are going to be as dead as the dodo on the Web.

That's a good point.  So which OS has the most efficient threads now
that can be spread across cores?

Maybe there is room for a hybrid approach - create a fixed number of
OS threads (equal to the number of cores), then shuffle lightweight
threads among them in a way that balances the load and avoids putting
threads that compete for the same resources on different cores?