From: | Adrian Phillips <adrianp(at)broadpark(dot)no> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL pre-fork speedup |
Date: | 2004-05-06 15:21:18 |
Message-ID: | 87smedbmz5.fsf@grannyogg.localnet |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "sdv" == sdv mailer <sdvmailer(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
sdv> Yes, I realize it's a bit old but I just wanted to make a
sdv> small point that forking is slower. It's funny you should ask
sdv> because thread creation on Linux has in fact improved over
sdv> process creation much more in 2.4 kernel.
sdv> Benchmark at IBM shows Linux 2.4 thread creation is 30x
sdv> faster than process creation. Process creation on Windows
sdv> 2000 is about twice longer than process creation on
sdv> Linux. This means forking on Win32 will be 2x slower! See
sdv> 2002 benchmark below:
sdv> http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-rt7/?Open&t=grl,l=252,p=mgth
Excuse me for butting in here but this shows that fork AND exec is
slower than thread creation. I was under the impression that (for 2.2
or 2.4 at least) both fork and thread creation used clone (kernel not
libc). Only when a process does an exec does the diiference show
(well, actually it seems when either process modifies its stack).
Now, saying that, I have no idea how postgresql works so will shut up.
Sincerely,
Adrian Phillips
--
Who really wrote the works of William Shakespeare ?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2004-05-06 15:22:11 | Re: pg_autovacuum Win32 service patch |
Previous Message | sdv mailer | 2004-05-06 15:13:45 | Re: PostgreSQL pre-fork speedup |