Dave Page wrote: > Alban Hertroys wrote: >> Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>>> I agree with you on the multi-threaded. I think I will add a note >>>> saying the the multi-threaded architecture is only advantageous on >>>> Windows. >>> And Solaris. >> >> I'm not entirely sure what makes multi-threading be advantageous on a >> specific operating system, but I think FreeBSD should be added to that >> list as well... They've been bench marking their threading support using >> multi-threading in MySQL (not for the db, mind you - just for load ;), >> and it performs really well. >> > > I'm not sure I necessarily agree with those two - we have no real proof > that a multithreaded architecture would be significantly more efficient > than a multi process. It certainly wouldn't be as robust as an error in > one backend thread could bring down the entire server. > > Windows is a special case in this regard. The OS has been designed from > the outset as a threaded environment. The important point is not that > Windows threads are necessarily any more efficient than their Solaris or > FreeBSD counterparts, but that the multi-process architecture is alien > to Windows and is inherently slower. Two of the major bottlenecks we > have on Windows as a result are backend startup time and shared memory > access speed - both of which are significantly slower than on *nix. > > Regards, Dave Thanks for explaining (again). So actually the remark shouldn't be that "the multi-threaded architecture is only advantageous on Windows", but more like "the multi-process architecture is disadvantageous on Windows and hence a multi-threaded architecture is preferred (on that particular OS)". -- Alban Hertroys alban@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx magproductions b.v. T: ++31(0)534346874 F: ++31(0)534346876 M: I: www.magproductions.nl A: Postbus 416 7500 AK Enschede // Integrate Your World // ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
