On Sunday, December 16, 2001 11:52 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > each thread uses up one available process in the
> So the "bad" thing about this is that you need one PID for each
> thread? What's the advantage of lightweight threads compared to
> intra-process threads.
I think you mean to compare l
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 06:20:00PM +0100, Holger Rauch wrote:
> Thanks for the hint. Does that mean you'd recommend using Blackdown's
JDK
> rather than Sun's?
in my experience, i highly recommend blackdown's over sun's. sun's
had this strange bug which reared its ugly head when the stack size
wa
Hi Greg!
Thanks for your reply!
On Sun, 16 Dec 2001, Greg Wiley wrote:
> On Sunday, December 16, 2001 8:52 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
> Linux is obviously multi-threaded but I think they
> are referring to so-called "lightweight" threads.
> IIRC, Linux creates intra-process threads via the
On Sunday, December 16, 2001 8:52 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.jboss.org/online-manual/HTML/ch10s02.html
> I read that Linux allegedly does not support "real threads". My questions
> on this issue are:
Linux is obviously multi-threaded but I think they
are referring to so-called "lightwei
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 06:20:00PM +0100, Holger Rauch wrote:
| Hi dman!
|
| Thanks for your quick reply!
|
| On Sun, 16 Dec 2001, dman wrote:
|
| > [...]
| > What is a "real" thread?
|
| Unfortunately, that wasn't clarified further in the documentation.
|
| > [...]
| > Perhaps they (or you
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 18:25:28 +0100, Holger Rauch wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2001, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> > Some people's definition of that seems to include hybrid user and kernel
> > space threading, and in that case, the statement is correct.
>
> Is this a big disadvantage for Linux comp
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 18:20:00 +0100, Holger Rauch wrote:
> When you say Java, you are probably referring to Sun JDK 1.3, right? Do
> you know by chance why it doesn't support kernel threads on Linux?
Because it would give Java developers under Un*x less incentive to "upgrade"
from free Unices
Hi Ray!
Thanks for your quick reply!
On Sun, 16 Dec 2001, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> [...]
> Some people's definition of that seems to
> include hybrid user and kernel space threading, and in that case, the
> statement is correct.
Is this a big disadvantage for Linux compared to other OSes?
Hi dman!
Thanks for your quick reply!
On Sun, 16 Dec 2001, dman wrote:
> [...]
> What is a "real" thread?
Unfortunately, that wasn't clarified further in the documentation.
> [...]
> Perhaps they (or you, I haven't checked the website) meant to say that
> _java_ on linux doesn't use kernel
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 17:52:15 +0100, Holger Rauch wrote:
> I read that Linux allegedly does not support "real threads". My questions
> on this issue are:
>
> 1. Is that statement correct at all?
That question is impossible to answer without a definition of what
constitutes "real threading". So
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 05:52:15PM +0100, Holger Rauch wrote:
| Hi!
|
| This is a rather general Linux kernel/glibc issue. In the JBoss
| documentation
|
| http://www.jboss.org/online-manual/HTML/ch10s02.html
|
| I read that Linux allegedly does not support "real threads". My questions
| o
Hi!
This is a rather general Linux kernel/glibc issue. In the JBoss
documentation
http://www.jboss.org/online-manual/HTML/ch10s02.html
I read that Linux allegedly does not support "real threads". My questions
on this issue are:
1. Is that statement correct at all?
2. If its correct, wh
12 matches
Mail list logo
