[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nel] NeL Network Engine
From: |
Vincent Caron |
Subject: |
Re: [Nel] NeL Network Engine |
Date: |
Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:30:32 +0100 |
Vianney Lecroart wrote:
>
> What we don't know is the thread number limit after what the system uses too
> much CPU. In the linuxthread faq, they
> said that an application should not create more than 100 thread. In this
> case, we have to forget the solution where each
> socket is on a thread and use a blocked receive(). The problem is that
> select() is quite slow and if we have only 100 thread,
> each thread needs to manage, with a select(), around 50 players and we ll
> lost lot of time to create the array for the select()
> and check who have wakeup the select().
Looking at Apache or Samba projects, it seems that a good compromise is to
set a 'maximum client requests by thread' and spawns threads accordingly.
Apache uses process forking and memory sharing, but the design remains the
same. You then just tune this max_request_by_thread for each OS, say 1 for
Solaris which is said thread-efficient, 10 for Linux ? Just a hint ...
- RE: [Nel] NeL Network Engine, (continued)
- Re: [Nel] NeL Network Engine, Thierry Mallard, 2001/02/28
- Re: [Nel] NeL Network Engine, Vianney Lecroart, 2001/02/28
- Re: [Nel] NeL Network Engine, Nicolas Hognon, 2001/02/28
- Re: [Nel] NeL Network Engine,
Vincent Caron <=
- Re: [Nel] NeL Network Engine, Nicolas Hognon, 2001/02/28
- Re: [Nel] NeL Network Engine, Vianney Lecroart, 2001/02/28
- Re: [Nel] NeL Network Engine, Vincent Caron, 2001/02/28
- Re: [Nel] NeL Network Engine, Nicolas Hognon, 2001/02/28
- Re: [Nel] NeL Network Engine, Zane, 2001/02/28
- Re: [Nel] NeL Network Engine, Nicolas Hognon, 2001/02/28
- Re: [Nel] NeL Network Engine, elijah wright, 2001/02/28
- Re: [Nel] NeL Network Engine, Zane, 2001/02/28
- Re: [Nel] NeL Network Engine, Bernard Hugueney, 2001/02/28
- Re: [Nel] NeL Network Engine, Leighton Haynes, 2001/02/28