On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, James Turner wrote:
>Yet circle is going to be multithreaded? In a world where
>multithreaded libraries are incompatible and often poorly implemented?
As I said, support 'pthreads'. Code along the spec, not the
implementation. If you have a bad implementation, use the non-threaded. I
never said it would be threaded, just that it's something that has been
considered.
>That's a contradiction. Threads, particularly with the amount of
>locking that will be needed, will significantly add to the CPU usage
>of Circle.
We take 0.1% at the moment. If you have a decent thread implementation,
you won't have much overhead. Most may be suboptimal but that doesn't stop
people from coding it. Many people consider Windows 95 suboptimal but code
for it often.
>How many people run muds from 386/16s? Not just debug runs -- I mean
>supporting users, open to the public? Very few.
The point is that you could. Aiming to keep it that way keeps out much
bloat.
>Like Linux, Circle should scale smoothly. Give it more hardware, it
>should do more.
If you have little memory, your OS will swap to disk for you. If you have
a slow processor, you'll run slower. When you have a lot of memory, your
OS will cache for you. When you have a fast (or multiples of) processor,
you'll run faster. What does CircleMUD have to do?
--
George Greer - Me@Null.net | Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity
http://www.van.ml.org/~greerga | is not thus handicapped. -- Elbert Hubbard
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST