Re: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than onnative

• Next message: Neil Brown: "Re: ll_rw_blk.c fails to merge requests. Help!"
• Previous message: Michael H. Warfield: "Re: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than onnative"
• In reply to: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com: "Re: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than onnative"
• Next in thread: Tigran Aivazian: "Re: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than onnative"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:
> Linux processes are more lightweight than "threads" on many operating
> systems. As Rob Pike pointed out many years ago: a perceived need for
> "threads" means that processes are poorly designed.

Do you have any statistics to back this up? I've heard that same
statement before, but it's always asserted without evidence or
argument. While I'm inclined to believe it based on my experience
with other OSes (NT/2000, Solaris, SunOS, OSF/1, Ultrix, MacOS, BSD),
I would like to see some proof, if there's proof to be had.

Thanks!

-M
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Neil Brown: "Re: ll_rw_blk.c fails to merge requests. Help!"
• Previous message: Michael H. Warfield: "Re: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than onnative"
• In reply to: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com: "Re: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than onnative"
• Next in thread: Tigran Aivazian: "Re: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than onnative"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 23 2000 - 21:00:10 EST