Re: debate on 700 threads vs asynchronous code

[Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com>]

Lee Chin <leechin@mail.com> wrote:
> Larry McVoy wrote:
>> > Now, to cater to 700 clients, I can
>> > a) launch 700 threads that each block on I/O to disk and to the client (in 
>> > reading and writing on the socket) 
>> > OR
>> > b) Write an asycnhrounous system with only 2 or three threads where I manage the
>> > connections and stack (via setcontext swapcontext etc), which is 
>> > programatically a little harder 
>> > Which way will yeild me better performance, considerng both approaches are
>> > implemented optimally?
>> 
>> If this is a serious question, an async system will by definition do better.
>> You have either 700 stacks screwing up the data cache or 2-3 stacks nicely
>> fitting in the data cache.  Ditto for instruction cache, etc.
 >
> Thanks for the rpely... my question was more so, with setcontext and swapcontext, I
> will still be messing with the data cache right?  
> 
> In otherwords, as long as I have an async system with out setcontext, I know I am
> good... but with it, havent I degraded to a threaded environment?

I suspect Linux's implementation of asynch I/O isn't able to handle sockets yet.
Thus the choice is between nonblocking I/O and blocking I/O.

Nonblocking I/O is totally the way to go if you have full control over your
source code and want the maximal performance in userspace.  The best way
to get good performance with nonblocking I/O in Linux is to use the sys_epoll
system call; it's part of the 2.5 kernel, but a backport to 2.4 is available.

See http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html for an overview of the issue and some links.
- Dan

-- 
Dan Kegel
http://www.kegel.com
http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045