tismer at tismer.com
Fri Sep 27 22:29:50 EDT 2002
Paul Rubin wrote:
> Mark Hammond <mhammond at skippinet.com.au> writes:
>>A "one thread per connection" model is doomed from the start -
>>therefore, in most applications, I would consider 5 threads a large
>>number - particularly when all are actively doing something. OTOH, if
>>you are willing to accept that your first version will accept a max of
>>~20 connections, the brain-power saved by using threads beats the
>>additional OS overhead by a mile ;)
> The new Linux native thread implementation was recently benchmarked
> running 100,000 simultaneous threads on a 1 GB machine. Starting all
> the threads and closing them took around 2 seconds.
Not too bad.
How about 1,000,000 in 100 MB?
Started and shut down in 15 seconds, from Python?
This was just a rough test of new features, will
give exact timings when I write the article...
ciao - chris
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer at tismer.com>
Mission Impossible 5oftware : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9a : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
work +49 30 89 09 53 34 home +49 30 802 86 56 pager +49 173 24 18 776
PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/
More information about the Python-list