On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Mark Hahn wrote: > threads, of course, are antithetical to security, since the whole > point is freedom to read/write anything.
This is one of the reasons that Tridge (of Samba fame) rants against the use threads by people thinking that they'll be faster than independent processes.. :-) Viz: http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2004-December/038301.html > no, you're still clinging to the notion that threads are somehow > inherently faster than processes. They aren't. They are inherently > slower, no matter what OS you are talking about. > > Some OSes might implement processes so badly that threads come out > ahead. It is fundamental computer science that doing operations in a > threaded environment will be slower than doing operations in an > equivalent process based environment, because they have to do more > work. > > Using processes allows you to take advantage of a hardware memory > protection system. Using threads doesn't. and: http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2004-December/038298.html > What is it about the word "thread" that people find so damn sexy? > > Maybe it needs a name change > "slow-as-hell-no-memory-protection-locks-dont-work" API might be > suitable, but I suspect the standards committees wouldn't like that > one. > > The MMU was added to CPUs for a very good reason. Why is it so hard > to understand that trying to avoid it is a bad idea? cheers, Chris -- Christopher Samuel - (03) 9925 4751 - Systems Manager The Victorian Partnership for Advanced Computing P.O. Box 201, Carlton South, VIC 3053, Australia VPAC is a not-for-profit Registered Research Agency
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
