IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New If this is a Unixy system, definitely go with fork()
The bulk of the interpreter will remain shared between children, saving memory. I don't know the threading implementation well enough to know if that holds there. Also the fact that these are separate processes is a big hint to the OS that it doesn't even have to think about concurrency issues. Some versions of *nix actively try to make it more likely that threads will stay on one processor to minimize locking/unlocking costs. Processes are more likely to be migrated freely to balance the load.

Plus fork() has been around for longer, and so has better guarantees of stability.

Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
New Yes...
....in this particular runtime, there is a correlation between threads and processors. Not overly familiar with fork(), but will read...thanks again for the help.

-Slugbug
If you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right.
-Henry Ford
     multithreaded Perl? - (slugbug) - (36)
         What the?? - (deSitter) - (14)
             multi-instance... - (slugbug) - (8)
                 If this is a Unixy system, definitely go with fork() - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                     Yes... - (slugbug)
                 Re: multi-instance... - (deSitter) - (5)
                     Er... - (admin) - (1)
                         DAMMIT! I WANT TOYS! -NT - (deSitter)
                     toys, toys, toys... - (slugbug) - (2)
                         Re: toys, toys, toys... - (deSitter)
                         Re: toys, toys, toys... (new thread) - (admin)
             Re: What the?? - (jb4) - (4)
                 That's 4GB of angle brackets alone! -NT - (deSitter) - (2)
                     Don't laugh... - (admin)
                     Yes, the developers of LISP would be proud... -NT - (jb4)
                 nope.... - (slugbug)
         Possible, but I wouldn't - (ben_tilly) - (15)
             Ben, thank you.... - (slugbug) - (14)
                 No problem - (ben_tilly) - (13)
                     Re: No problem - (deSitter) - (2)
                         The more you can do, the more they ask you to do - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                             Absolutely. - (admin)
                     this is an... - (slugbug)
                     So, Perl assumes POSIX compliance in the OS, eh? - (jb4) - (6)
                         No - (ben_tilly) - (5)
                             Interesting, but looks like a bit of a kluge - (jb4) - (4)
                                 It is a kludge - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                                     Re: It is a kludge - (deSitter) - (2)
                                         One of those things was Perl ;-) -NT - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                             Don't I know! - (deSitter)
                     Query: I've played a (small) amount with the multithreading - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
                         That scheduler optimization is pretty recent IIRC -NT - (ben_tilly)
         More info please - (broomberg) - (4)
             Geez. 1 day late and nothin! -NT - (broomberg)
             1 day late and.... - (slugbug) - (2)
                 IFS? - (broomberg) - (1)
                     Re: IFS? - (slugbug)

Powered by general relativity!
65 ms