* Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? @ 2001-03-30 2:36 Mike Silva 2001-03-30 7:14 ` Christopher Green ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Mike Silva @ 2001-03-30 2:36 UTC (permalink / raw) Is either of these OSes (on x86) the preferred choice based on completeness and performance of their threading implementations? I'm looking to improve my skills at both raw POSIX threads programming and Ada task programming (GNAT) and want to make the right OS choice, if there is one. Thanks for any comments. Mike ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? 2001-03-30 2:36 Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? Mike Silva @ 2001-03-30 7:14 ` Christopher Green 2001-03-30 9:55 ` Hans-Olof Danielsson 2001-03-30 12:28 ` David C. Hoos, Sr. 2001-03-30 20:35 ` Stefan Skoglund 2001-04-01 19:41 ` David Schwartz 2 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Christopher Green @ 2001-03-30 7:14 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:36:16 -0800, "Mike Silva" <mjsilva@jps.net> wrote: >Is either of these OSes (on x86) the preferred choice based on completeness >and performance of their threading implementations? I'm looking to improve >my skills at both raw POSIX threads programming and Ada task programming >(GNAT) and want to make the right OS choice, if there is one. Thanks for >any comments. > >Mike Linux has the more mature and stable threads implementation. GNAT on Linux works directly with Linux threads. Go with Linux unless you must have a BSD-ish Unix. However, watch out for Linux 2.4 kernels; Linux threads were broken in these kernels (at least as of last September). Linux kernel 2.2-based distributions, such as RedHat 7.0, are fine. -- Chris Green ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? 2001-03-30 7:14 ` Christopher Green @ 2001-03-30 9:55 ` Hans-Olof Danielsson 2001-03-30 12:28 ` David C. Hoos, Sr. 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Hans-Olof Danielsson @ 2001-03-30 9:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada "Christopher Green" <cj.green@worldnet.att.net> skriver: > On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:36:16 -0800, "Mike Silva" <mjsilva@jps.net> > wrote: > > >Is either of these OSes (on x86) the preferred choice based on completeness > >and performance of their threading implementations? I'm looking to improve > >my skills at both raw POSIX threads programming and Ada task programming > >(GNAT) and want to make the right OS choice, if there is one. Thanks for > >any comments. > > > >Mike > > Linux has the more mature and stable threads implementation. GNAT on > Linux works directly with Linux threads. Go with Linux unless you must > have a BSD-ish Unix. > > However, watch out for Linux 2.4 kernels; Linux threads were broken in > these kernels (at least as of last September). Linux kernel 2.2-based > distributions, such as RedHat 7.0, are fine. > > -- > Chris Green > To this can be added that an implementation of GNAT using Linux naitve threads doesn't fully support Annex C & D of the Ada Reference Manual, as the Linux threads are not fully in conformance with POSIX threads. There is an alternative threading implementation from the Florida State University (FSU) that fully support thouse two annexes. Hans-Olof ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? 2001-03-30 7:14 ` Christopher Green 2001-03-30 9:55 ` Hans-Olof Danielsson @ 2001-03-30 12:28 ` David C. Hoos, Sr. 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: David C. Hoos, Sr. @ 2001-03-30 12:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To be fair, the 2.4 kernels before Jan 4, 2001 were not released kernels, but test kernels. We've been using the 2.4.1 kernel with a pair of gnat applications, of which one has 23 threads, and the other 11 threads. We had been using 2.2.16, but switched because 2.4 kernels provide a generic SCSI driver which in the 2.2.16 kernel needed to be replaced with another driver, making that kernel source tree non-standard. We found that the 2.4.1 kernel, beside being able to be used in "standard" source tree form provided improved memory management, and exhibited no negative attributes relative to 2.2.16. "Christopher Green" <cj.green@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:3ac426a6.736068@netnews.att.net... > On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:36:16 -0800, "Mike Silva" <mjsilva@jps.net> > wrote: > > >Is either of these OSes (on x86) the preferred choice based on completeness > >and performance of their threading implementations? I'm looking to improve > >my skills at both raw POSIX threads programming and Ada task programming > >(GNAT) and want to make the right OS choice, if there is one. Thanks for > >any comments. > > > >Mike > > Linux has the more mature and stable threads implementation. GNAT on > Linux works directly with Linux threads. Go with Linux unless you must > have a BSD-ish Unix. > > However, watch out for Linux 2.4 kernels; Linux threads were broken in > these kernels (at least as of last September). Linux kernel 2.2-based > distributions, such as RedHat 7.0, are fine. > > -- > Chris Green ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? 2001-03-30 2:36 Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? Mike Silva 2001-03-30 7:14 ` Christopher Green @ 2001-03-30 20:35 ` Stefan Skoglund 2001-04-01 7:03 ` Arthur H. Gold 2001-04-01 16:53 ` Patrick TJ McPhee 2001-04-01 19:41 ` David Schwartz 2 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Stefan Skoglund @ 2001-03-30 20:35 UTC (permalink / raw) Mike Silva wrote: > and performance of their threading implementations? I'm looking to improve > my skills at both raw POSIX threads programming and Ada task programming > (GNAT) and want to make the right OS choice, if there is one. Thanks for Personally i think that the thread model in Linux sucks. The one in Solaris is much better. Solaris has OS supported sync of threads in the same task. You can create a mutex which works correctly between threads in the same task. Linux DOESN't support that. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? 2001-03-30 20:35 ` Stefan Skoglund @ 2001-04-01 7:03 ` Arthur H. Gold 2001-04-01 16:53 ` Patrick TJ McPhee 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Arthur H. Gold @ 2001-04-01 7:03 UTC (permalink / raw) Stefan Skoglund wrote: > > Mike Silva wrote: > > and performance of their threading implementations? I'm looking to improve > > my skills at both raw POSIX threads programming and Ada task programming > > (GNAT) and want to make the right OS choice, if there is one. Thanks for > > Personally i think that the thread model in Linux sucks. OK. Why? (outside of the non-standard signal delivery semantics) > > The one in Solaris is much better. > Solaris has OS supported sync of threads in the same task. > You can create a mutex which works correctly between threads in the > same task. Linux DOESN't support that. Huh? Would you be kind enough to explain this? Thanks, --ag -- Artie Gold, Austin, TX (finger the cs.utexas.edu account for more info) mailto:agold@bga.com or mailto:agold@cs.utexas.edu -- Clone Bernie! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? 2001-03-30 20:35 ` Stefan Skoglund 2001-04-01 7:03 ` Arthur H. Gold @ 2001-04-01 16:53 ` Patrick TJ McPhee 2001-04-03 12:08 ` Florian Weimer 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Patrick TJ McPhee @ 2001-04-01 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3AC4EE29.424057F6@ebox.tninet.se>, Stefan Skoglund <stetson@ebox.tninet.se> wrote: % Solaris has OS supported sync of threads in the same task. % You can create a mutex which works correctly between threads in the % same task. Linux DOESN't support that. This is simply untrue. The only serious problem with the Linux thread model is that each thread is assigned its own process id, contrary to standards and common sense. -- Patrick TJ McPhee East York Canada ptjm@interlog.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? 2001-04-01 16:53 ` Patrick TJ McPhee @ 2001-04-03 12:08 ` Florian Weimer 2001-04-03 18:25 ` Arthur H. Gold 2001-04-04 3:22 ` Patrick TJ McPhee 0 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2001-04-03 12:08 UTC (permalink / raw) ptjm@interlog.com (Patrick TJ McPhee) writes: > % Solaris has OS supported sync of threads in the same task. > % You can create a mutex which works correctly between threads in the > % same task. Linux DOESN't support that. > > This is simply untrue. The only serious problem with the Linux thread > model is that each thread is assigned its own process id, contrary to > standards and common sense. IMHO, the Linux model makes signal delivery much more transparent. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? 2001-04-03 12:08 ` Florian Weimer @ 2001-04-03 18:25 ` Arthur H. Gold 2001-04-03 18:41 ` David Schwartz 2001-04-04 3:22 ` Patrick TJ McPhee 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Arthur H. Gold @ 2001-04-03 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw) Florian Weimer wrote: > > ptjm@interlog.com (Patrick TJ McPhee) writes: > > > % Solaris has OS supported sync of threads in the same task. > > % You can create a mutex which works correctly between threads in the > > % same task. Linux DOESN't support that. > > > > This is simply untrue. The only serious problem with the Linux thread > > model is that each thread is assigned its own process id, contrary to > > standards and common sense. > > IMHO, the Linux model makes signal delivery much more transparent. No argument there; the only problem is that in this respect linuxthreads contravenes the POSIX standard for threads, resulting in portability problems. --ag -- Artie Gold, Austin, TX (finger the cs.utexas.edu account for more info) mailto:agold@bga.com or mailto:agold@cs.utexas.edu -- Clone Bernie! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? 2001-04-03 18:25 ` Arthur H. Gold @ 2001-04-03 18:41 ` David Schwartz 2001-04-03 19:41 ` Florian Weimer 2001-04-04 7:28 ` igor 0 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: David Schwartz @ 2001-04-03 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw) "Arthur H. Gold" wrote: > No argument there; the only problem is that in this respect > linuxthreads contravenes the POSIX standard for threads, > resulting in portability problems. It's not that terribly difficult to avoid using signals in a multithreaded program. This is one of the many cases where the standard is lacking. 'set[re]uid' is another. DS ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? 2001-04-03 18:41 ` David Schwartz @ 2001-04-03 19:41 ` Florian Weimer 2001-04-04 7:28 ` igor 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2001-04-03 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw) David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> writes: > "Arthur H. Gold" wrote: > > > No argument there; the only problem is that in this respect > > linuxthreads contravenes the POSIX standard for threads, > > resulting in portability problems. If the standard is broken, there is some reason not to follow it. For example, when you implement a garbage collector and use some VM feature to track data modification, it's probably a good idea if SIGSEGV is sent to the thread which generated the signal. Does the standard mandate this? > It's not that terribly difficult to avoid using signals in a > multithreaded program. This is one of the many cases where the standard > is lacking. 'set[re]uid' is another. And symbolic links. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? 2001-04-03 18:41 ` David Schwartz 2001-04-03 19:41 ` Florian Weimer @ 2001-04-04 7:28 ` igor 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: igor @ 2001-04-04 7:28 UTC (permalink / raw) In comp.programming.threads David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote: > > > "Arthur H. Gold" wrote: > >> No argument there; the only problem is that in this respect >> linuxthreads contravenes the POSIX standard for threads, >> resulting in portability problems. > > It's not that terribly difficult to avoid using signals in a > multithreaded program. This is one of the many cases where the standard > is lacking. 'set[re]uid' is another. > Exactly. And one more, if my memory serve me correctly: with linuxthreads pthread_attr_setstackaddr kill programm. Maybe this is fixed in new releases. -- Igor Khasilev | PACO Links, igor at paco dot net | ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? 2001-04-03 12:08 ` Florian Weimer 2001-04-03 18:25 ` Arthur H. Gold @ 2001-04-04 3:22 ` Patrick TJ McPhee 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Patrick TJ McPhee @ 2001-04-04 3:22 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <871yranq1w.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote: % ptjm@interlog.com (Patrick TJ McPhee) writes: % % > % Solaris has OS supported sync of threads in the same task. % > % You can create a mutex which works correctly between threads in the % > % same task. Linux DOESN't support that. % > % > This is simply untrue. The only serious problem with the Linux thread % > model is that each thread is assigned its own process id, contrary to % > standards and common sense. % % IMHO, the Linux model makes signal delivery much more transparent. Fine, it is still contrary to standards and common sense for a process to have n process IDs, where n is some number > 1, and it can be a serious problem if you want to use either process IDs or signals portably. -- Patrick TJ McPhee East York Canada ptjm@interlog.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? 2001-03-30 2:36 Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? Mike Silva 2001-03-30 7:14 ` Christopher Green 2001-03-30 20:35 ` Stefan Skoglund @ 2001-04-01 19:41 ` David Schwartz 2001-04-01 19:57 ` Dima Volodin 2 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: David Schwartz @ 2001-04-01 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw) Mike Silva wrote: > Is either of these OSes (on x86) the preferred choice based on completeness > and performance of their threading implementations? I'm looking to improve > my skills at both raw POSIX threads programming and Ada task programming > (GNAT) and want to make the right OS choice, if there is one. Thanks for > any comments. > > Mike 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. DS ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? 2001-04-01 19:41 ` David Schwartz @ 2001-04-01 19:57 ` Dima Volodin 2001-04-02 1:26 ` David Schwartz 2001-04-02 16:17 ` Sander Pilon 0 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Dima Volodin @ 2001-04-01 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw) David Schwartz wrote: > > Mike Silva wrote: > > Is either of these OSes (on x86) the preferred choice based on completeness > > and performance of their threading implementations? I'm looking to improve > > my skills at both raw POSIX threads programming and Ada task programming > > (GNAT) and want to make the right OS choice, if there is one. Thanks for > > any comments. > > > > Mike > > 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? > DS Dima ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? 2001-04-01 19:57 ` Dima Volodin @ 2001-04-02 1:26 ` David Schwartz 2001-04-02 17:39 ` Dima Volodin 2001-04-02 16:17 ` Sander Pilon 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: David Schwartz @ 2001-04-02 1:26 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. DS ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? 2001-04-02 1:26 ` David Schwartz @ 2001-04-02 17:39 ` Dima Volodin 2001-04-03 11:36 ` Matthias Kretschmer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Dima Volodin @ 2001-04-02 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw) 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? > DS Dima ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? 2001-04-02 17:39 ` Dima Volodin @ 2001-04-03 11:36 ` Matthias Kretschmer 2001-04-03 11:40 ` Matthias Kretschmer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Matthias Kretschmer @ 2001-04-03 11:36 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ... > > > DS > > Dima ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? 2001-04-03 11:36 ` Matthias Kretschmer @ 2001-04-03 11:40 ` Matthias Kretschmer 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Matthias Kretschmer @ 2001-04-03 11:40 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? 2001-04-01 19:57 ` Dima Volodin 2001-04-02 1:26 ` David Schwartz @ 2001-04-02 16:17 ` Sander Pilon [not found] ` <3AC8B9DD.134B6562@dvv.org> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Sander Pilon @ 2001-04-02 16:17 UTC (permalink / raw) "Dima Volodin" <dvv@dvv.org> wrote in message news:3AC7880C.24EE5D01@dvv.org... > David Schwartz wrote: > > > > Mike Silva wrote: > > > Is either of these OSes (on x86) the preferred choice based on completeness > > > and performance of their threading implementations? I'm looking to improve > > > my skills at both raw POSIX threads programming and Ada task programming > > > (GNAT) and want to make the right OS choice, if there is one. Thanks for > > > any comments. > > > > > > Mike > > > > 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? > Probably not. I've got a application that uses threads (25 of them), and on linux it can run for hours and hours without crashing, and on freebsd 4.2-stable it goes down with buserrors or segfaults in minutes. ( we're developing it, so "weeks" is not yet an option :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <3AC8B9DD.134B6562@dvv.org>]
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? [not found] ` <3AC8B9DD.134B6562@dvv.org> @ 2001-04-02 19:21 ` Marin David Condic [not found] ` <3AC8DDA0.D4DF412B@dvv.org> 2001-04-02 21:41 ` Sander Pilon 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2001-04-02 19:21 UTC (permalink / raw) That's a little unfair. Multithreaded applications are sensitive to all sorts of things that may have little or nothing to do with how well or badly they are written. If the underlying OS is unstable & you can't count on the primitives to work, you're hosed. If the application is sensitive to timing and you don't have proper underlying hardware, you're hosed. Unless your multithreaded app is trivial, you can always have problems in porting it no matter what you do with the design. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Dima Volodin" <dvv@dvv.org> wrote in message news:3AC8B9DD.134B6562@dvv.org... > That's what sloppy written multithreaded applications do - they produce > expected results in one environment and crash like mad in others. Not that I'm > saying that your application belongs to this class. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <3AC8DDA0.D4DF412B@dvv.org>]
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? [not found] ` <3AC8DDA0.D4DF412B@dvv.org> @ 2001-04-03 20:48 ` Dima Volodin [not found] ` <x7v66gn2gfy.fsf@smaug.pushface.org> 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Dima Volodin @ 2001-04-03 20:48 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > That's a little unfair. Multithreaded applications are sensitive to all > sorts of things that may have little or nothing to do with how well or badly > they are written. If the underlying OS is unstable & you can't count on the > primitives to work, you're hosed. That's understandable, but it's just as unfair to claim an OS is unstable providing your application's unstable behaviour as a proof of it. > If the application is sensitive to timing > and you don't have proper underlying hardware, you're hosed. If your application _has_ to be time-sensitive, then no question about it - you've got to choose a hardware/OS combo that fits your real-time needs. Otherwise, when there is no tight timing requirements, and your application is still timing-dependent, you're hosed thanks to the poor design and/or implementation of your app. > Unless your > multithreaded app is trivial, you can always have problems in porting it no > matter what you do with the design. Or so it might seem. The whole point in pedantically systematic approach to threads programming and programming in general is to minimize platform dependency to the absolutely necessary minimum and it works for me most of the time. > MDC Dima ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <x7v66gn2gfy.fsf@smaug.pushface.org>]
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? [not found] ` <x7v66gn2gfy.fsf@smaug.pushface.org> @ 2001-04-03 20:55 ` Dima Volodin 2001-04-10 6:32 ` Simon Wright 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Dima Volodin @ 2001-04-03 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Wright wrote: > > Dima Volodin <dvv@dvv.org> writes: > > > TWFyaW4gRGF2aWQgQ29uZGljIHdyb3RlOg0KDQo+IFRoYXQncyBhIGxpdHRsZSB1bmZhaXIu > > IE11bHRpdGhyZWFkZWQgYXBwbGljYXRpb25zIGFyZSBzZW5zaXRpdmUgdG8gYWxsDQo+IHNv > > [...] > Huh? could you perhaps try posting in English? (have you got MIME > enabled somewhere, perhaps?) It is in English using perfectly legit base64, which is an intrinsic feature of Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 i86pc), and you cannot really control it with any check boxes or settings in preferences.js. And I've heard it's very easy to decode base64 (or anything) in Emacs. Have I heard wrong? Anyway, the plain text version of the same posting is out in the newsgroups, see msg <3ACA370E.899C3546@dvv.org> Dima ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? 2001-04-03 20:55 ` Dima Volodin @ 2001-04-10 6:32 ` Simon Wright 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2001-04-10 6:32 UTC (permalink / raw) Dima Volodin <dvv@dvv.org> writes: > Simon Wright wrote: > > > > Dima Volodin <dvv@dvv.org> writes: > > > > > TWFyaW4gRGF2aWQgQ29uZGljIHdyb3RlOg0KDQo+IFRoYXQncyBhIGxpdHRsZSB1bmZhaXIu > > > IE11bHRpdGhyZWFkZWQgYXBwbGljYXRpb25zIGFyZSBzZW5zaXRpdmUgdG8gYWxsDQo+IHNv > > > [...] > > Huh? could you perhaps try posting in English? (have you got MIME > > enabled somewhere, perhaps?) > > It is in English using perfectly legit base64, which is an intrinsic > feature of Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 i86pc), and you cannot > really control it with any check boxes or settings in preferences.js. > And I've heard it's very easy to decode base64 (or anything) in Emacs. > Have I heard wrong? Well - C-x o C-x h M-| metamail RET does decode it, but the much more likely response is to hit n (=> "I can't be bothered to read this, next posting please") ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? [not found] ` <3AC8B9DD.134B6562@dvv.org> 2001-04-02 19:21 ` Marin David Condic @ 2001-04-02 21:41 ` Sander Pilon 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Sander Pilon @ 2001-04-02 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw) "Dima Volodin" <dvv@dvv.org> wrote in message news:3AC8B9DD.134B6562@dvv.org... > Sander Pilon wrote: > > > "Dima Volodin" <dvv@dvv.org> wrote in message > > news:3AC7880C.24EE5D01@dvv.org... > > > 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? > > > > > > > Probably not. > > > > I've got a application that uses threads (25 of them), and on linux it can > > run for hours and hours without crashing, and on freebsd 4.2-stable it goes > > down with buserrors or segfaults in minutes. ( we're developing it, so > > "weeks" is not yet an option :) > > That's what sloppy written multithreaded applications do - they produce > expected results in one environment and crash like mad in others. Not that I'm > saying that your application belongs to this class. > Yes I know. But we might as well be debugging the sloppy freebsd threads implementation or the poor state of the c++ stl library of gcc. I just wish we had some decent debugging tools with supports for threads.... -S ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-04-10 6:32 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 25+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2001-03-30 2:36 Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking? Mike Silva 2001-03-30 7:14 ` Christopher Green 2001-03-30 9:55 ` Hans-Olof Danielsson 2001-03-30 12:28 ` David C. Hoos, Sr. 2001-03-30 20:35 ` Stefan Skoglund 2001-04-01 7:03 ` Arthur H. Gold 2001-04-01 16:53 ` Patrick TJ McPhee 2001-04-03 12:08 ` Florian Weimer 2001-04-03 18:25 ` Arthur H. Gold 2001-04-03 18:41 ` David Schwartz 2001-04-03 19:41 ` Florian Weimer 2001-04-04 7:28 ` igor 2001-04-04 3:22 ` Patrick TJ McPhee 2001-04-01 19:41 ` David Schwartz 2001-04-01 19:57 ` Dima Volodin 2001-04-02 1:26 ` David Schwartz 2001-04-02 17:39 ` Dima Volodin 2001-04-03 11:36 ` Matthias Kretschmer 2001-04-03 11:40 ` Matthias Kretschmer 2001-04-02 16:17 ` Sander Pilon [not found] ` <3AC8B9DD.134B6562@dvv.org> 2001-04-02 19:21 ` Marin David Condic [not found] ` <3AC8DDA0.D4DF412B@dvv.org> 2001-04-03 20:48 ` Dima Volodin [not found] ` <x7v66gn2gfy.fsf@smaug.pushface.org> 2001-04-03 20:55 ` Dima Volodin 2001-04-10 6:32 ` Simon Wright 2001-04-02 21:41 ` Sander Pilon
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox