On May 30, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Glenn L. Austin wrote:
> But the NT scheduler (through XP) absolutely sucked in terms of
> permitting a single process to "starve" other processes. That has
> been improved with Vista.
That wasn't the big problem, though. Crashes and incorrect behavior
were the problem.
> Design it to be multi-processor-aware, and you're far better off than
> multi-threaded. When you start thinking "multiple processors" you
> start thinking about contention for resources (multiple processors
> attempting to access the same resource) and parallelizing your tasks
> by reducing "sync points" between multiple processes.
>
> Threading (and parallel processing) is something that a lot of people
> want to be able to do, but there are so many pitfalls that most people
> don't get it right.
>
> (I've been designing parallel processing systems since 1987 -- it's
> NOT as easy as it looks!)
Thanks for these comments, Glenn -- it matches my own experience as
well.
Best,
- Joe
--
Joe Strout
Inspiring Applications, Inc.
http://www.InspiringApps.com
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|