Fastream Technologies wrote: > I test my ICS-based MT proxy with 20k connections on our dual-core > system. It performs 2GBps, local-to-local. So that's one CPU > performance basically since the tester also uses CPU! I would not > imagine such performance with single thread.
Those numbers don't tell me much. I'm missing a serious comparison between an optimized MT and an optimzed ST server. One comparison was how many clients can be connected until the first is being rejected due to a full ListenBackLogQueue. Another was how long would it take until all clients finished their concurrent download. -- Arno Garrels [TeamICS] http://www.overbyte.be/eng/overbyte/teamics.html > > Best Regards, > > SZ > > > On 10/11/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> --- QUOTE: SZ >> If you do not want the ability to use multi-cores for >> communication threads, >> then async is the way to go. But IMO, it is an ill >> design since chipmakers >> are talking about 64-core CPUs and 10Gbps networks. >> --- END. >> >> Thanks, SZ. At this point I'm not so much concerned >> about complexity (although, of course, that is a >> concern), but more about performance and efficiency. >> I know that the arguments are always against >> multiple threads because they are harder to debug and >> synchronize, which is a very valid argument, and one >> that's biting me in the ass right now, but is that at >> the cost of a perceivable performance hit? Or is the >> async component not only simpler to use, but just as >> fast (or at least not significantly slower)? >> >> -dZ. -- To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list please goto http://www.elists.org/mailman/listinfo/twsocket Visit our website at http://www.overbyte.be
