Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!paladin.american.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.gtn.com!news2.gtn.com!news.hamburg.pop.de!nordwest.pop.de!uniol!uni-erlangen.de!rznews.rrze.uni-erlangen.de!cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de!msmeissn
From: msmeissn@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Marcus Meissner)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Win32 CreateThread() vs Unix fork()
Date: 12 Dec 1995 17:42:58 GMT
Organization: University of Erlangen, Germany, CSD, Students Pool
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <4akev2$e07@rznews.rrze.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <4ab85f$idq@news.voicenet.com> <4adu72$nkf@heathers.stdio.com> <4aig98$mca@madeline.ins.cwru.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: faui04g.informatik.uni-erlangen.de
NNTP-Posting-User: msmeissn
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10423 comp.unix.advocacy:12193
In article <4aig98$mca@madeline.ins.cwru.edu>,
Gabriel N. Schaffer <gns2@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>
>In a previous article, risner@stdio.com () says:
>>In <4ab85f$idq@news.voicenet.com>, 900RR (900RR) writes:
>
>>>Win32's CreateThread() is an extremely fast and efficient way of
>>>
>>>By contrast, Unix uses fork() to start an entire new process to
>>
>>>In any case, does anyone know how much more efficient a server
>>>application could run under an NT system than the same app, same
>>>hardware on something like FreeBSD or Linux?
>>
>>>Do veteran Unix programmers avoid fork() like the plague?
>>No.
Ever heard of select(2)? Nonblocking IO?
At least my single-process-httpd runs happily using it.
>Of course not, they have no choice.
If they need external processes, right. Else some coding with select()
will help.
>>Look at http://corp.novell.com/press/pr95251.htm
>>It has a article from ZIFF which compares NT and various commercial UN*X
>>systems. UnixWare was VERY NEARLY twice as fast in terms of transactions
>>per second as compared to NT. SCO was around 50% faster than NT.
>
>Ah, but since NT scaled at 100% and UW at only 80%, you need only add a few
>more CPUs to make NT much faster than the rest. In case you don't get what
>I'm saying here, any test which shows 100% scaling is severely flawed
>because that's like having an engine run at 100% efficiency -- it's just
>not physically possible.
100% scaleable? Wasn't that mentioned under 'impossible' in the OS concepts
lectures I've heard?
Or have I missed some reference/comment of yours?
>>I would be interested in seeing a test compare of servers for Linux, FreeBSD,
>>UnixWare, SCO, NT, OS/2 because this article did not contain any free UN*X tested.
>There were no free versions of SMP Unix to test.
Dunno, but Linux 1.4 should be out in the next half year.
And I thought one of the free *BSDs had SMP support already?
Marcus
--
http://wwwcip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/user/msmeissn/index.html
KeyID:0x4741CDDD,on request:sn-address,phonenr,support[WinE,NoCeM,Linux]