Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [Fibers] Performance
From: Giovanni Piero Deretta (gpderetta_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-16 09:03:52

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Oliver Kowalke <oliver.kowalke_at_[hidden]>wrote:

> 2014/1/16 Giovanni Piero Deretta <gpderetta_at_[hidden]>
> > I think that Harmut point is that you can very well use threads for the
> > same thing. In this particular case you would just perform a syncronous
> > read. Yes, to mantain the same level of concurrency you need to spawn ten
> > of thousands of threads, but that's feasible on a modern os/hardware
> pair.
> > The point of using fibers (i.e. M:N threading) is almost purely
> > performance.
> >
> In the context of C10K problem and using the one-thread-per-client pattern
> I doubt
> that this would scale (even on modern hardware). Do you have some data
> showing
> the performance of an modern operating system and hardware by increasing
> thread count?
I do not have hard numbers (do you?), but consider that the C10K page is
quite antiquated today.

On a previous life I worked on relatively low-latency applications that did
handle multiple thousands requests per second per machine. We never
bothered with anything but with the one thread per connection model. This
was on windows, on, IIRC, octa-core 64 bits machines (today you can
"easily" get 24 cores or more on a standard intel server class machine).

Now, if we were talking about hundreds of thousands of threads or milions
of threads, it would be interesting to see numbers for both threads and

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at