Re: threads vs. processes

I haven't done such a test but i can tell you what i've become to 
consider a best way to run a stress script for example.
I made a master program that launches some proceses and monitors them. 
(It can tell when the kernell kills one of them etc..). Each process 
runs a number of threads, With this i could easily obtain 500 
(processesxthreads ) running without the machine crashing or the kernell 
messing them up....


Ram Tulasi wrote:

>After following a lot of the email discussions, I thought I'd test out
>and see the performance benefits of using ithreads.
>Yeah, I was apprehensive and kind of expecting the results below.. :)
>
>I am using perl 5.8.6 on Linux 2.4.18-14
>
>Results from a test run that in which each thread/process is simply
>looping and doing an 'ls' on the local filesystem.
>I used Proc::ProcessTable to gather the system memory statistics.
>
>With 50 threads:
>    Total memory used = 365797376 
>    Percent memory (pctmem) = 24
>With 50 processes:
>    Total memory usage = 513978368
>    Percent memory (pctmem) = 32
>
>So, really they are comparable and I'd expect threads to use more
>memory as the number increases.. I couldn't really get 100 threads to
>run for me successfully yet...
>
>Anyone else have similar numbers that we could compare with? 
>-Ram
>  
>


-- 
Mihai Vlad