Remove the outdated notion that multithreading doesn't work well on Unices.
This commit is contained in:
parent
534e253cb6
commit
fa03f6c863
|
@ -395,19 +395,13 @@ Performance
|
|||
|
||||
There's no question that the fastest sockets code uses non-blocking sockets and
|
||||
select to multiplex them. You can put together something that will saturate a
|
||||
LAN connection without putting any strain on the CPU. The trouble is that an app
|
||||
written this way can't do much of anything else - it needs to be ready to
|
||||
shuffle bytes around at all times.
|
||||
LAN connection without putting any strain on the CPU.
|
||||
|
||||
Assuming that your app is actually supposed to do something more than that,
|
||||
threading is the optimal solution, (and using non-blocking sockets will be
|
||||
faster than using blocking sockets). Unfortunately, threading support in Unixes
|
||||
varies both in API and quality. So the normal Unix solution is to fork a
|
||||
subprocess to deal with each connection. The overhead for this is significant
|
||||
(and don't do this on Windows - the overhead of process creation is enormous
|
||||
there). It also means that unless each subprocess is completely independent,
|
||||
you'll need to use another form of IPC, say a pipe, or shared memory and
|
||||
semaphores, to communicate between the parent and child processes.
|
||||
The trouble is that an app written this way can't do much of anything else -
|
||||
it needs to be ready to shuffle bytes around at all times. Assuming that your
|
||||
app is actually supposed to do something more than that, threading is the
|
||||
optimal solution, (and using non-blocking sockets will be faster than using
|
||||
blocking sockets).
|
||||
|
||||
Finally, remember that even though blocking sockets are somewhat slower than
|
||||
non-blocking, in many cases they are the "right" solution. After all, if your
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue