From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: ffc1e,d0d32a18bbb61bb0 X-Google-Attributes: gidffc1e,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d0d32a18bbb61bb0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-04-03 03:38:04 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!freenix!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.netcologne.de!RRZ.Uni-Koeln.DE!news.rhrz.uni-bonn.de!not-for-mail From: Matthias Kretschmer Newsgroups: comp.programming.threads,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 12:40:48 +0100 Organization: RHRZ - University of Bonn (Germany) Message-ID: <3AC9B6C0.AAB554B6@gmx.net> References: <3AC7845B.F3314769@webmaster.com> <3AC7880C.24EE5D01@dvv.org> <3AC7D540.6A7C00EB@webmaster.com> <3AC8B93D.75C2E39E@dvv.org> <3AC9B5A3.7F56BCF@gmx.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.informatik.uni-bonn.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: f1node01.rhrz.uni-bonn.de 986294190 53034 131.220.4.23 (3 Apr 2001 10:36:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@f1node01.rhrz.uni-bonn.de NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Apr 2001 10:36:30 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [de] (OS/2; U) X-Accept-Language: de Xref: supernews.google.com comp.programming.threads:3468 comp.lang.ada:6397 Date: 2001-04-03T10:36:30+00:00 List-Id: Matthias Kretschmer schrieb: > Dima Volodin wrote: > > > David Schwartz wrote: > > > > > Dima Volodin wrote: > > > > > > > > In my experience, multithreaded programs running agressively on FreeBSD > > > > > inevitably crash. The Linux threading model is much stabler. I've tried > > > > > both FreeBSD's libc_r and the port of LinuxThreads. > > > > > > > What does it mean "running aggressively"? I have a multithreaded program > > > > that runs on a 3.5-STABLE FreeBSD box for weeks at a time without > > > > crashing at all. Am I not aggressive enough? > > > > > > By "running agressively" I mean performing a large number of tasks, > > > stressing all aspects of the system (especially vm and networking), on > > > an SMP machine. > > > > Could you throw in some numbers here, please? > > > > I had never problems with FreeBSD 3.4 and 4.1-stable running on my dual PII box - > performed very well, even with a large load, which bloated my linux-2.2 - linux-2.4 is > much better, but the SMP code of freebsd 4-branch is definatevly faster than linux-2.4 in > my experience around 5% - so you have to benchmark a lot to see the differences :-) - My > box never hung with high load nor with low ... And I had it running for some time now ... > forgot to say: do not use FreeBSD if you need gnat and wants to compile it out of the ports-collection - this is true for the binary package lying on ftp.freebsd.org at the beginning of this year ... - the gnat doesn't use native thread implementation, but instead simulates threads and uses non-preemptive threads instead. 1. It doesn't support SMP environments. 2. Non-preemptive sucks :-) - I myself switched OS, because I was too lazy to get gnat properly working, if someone has some patches/binaries, please mail me. > > > > > > DS > > > > Dima