Help PLZ

[Martijn van Oosterhout]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 07:19:01PM +1000, Damien Elmes wrote:
> > One thing I don't like is rigid mentality, "we run redhat here" "the
> > earth is flat"; refuse outright any other suggestions, not on technical
> > (de)merits but sheer blind prejudice.  The scientist in me cannot accept
> > that one solution is the only one, be all and end all.  Hell, even NT
> > has some nice features (fast threading, binding applications or drivers
> > in SMP systems to a particular CPU, component-based architecture) 
> 
> i've heard that a) the threading is really broken in NT, which would
> explain why it's fast, and b) that linux *can* bind tasks to a
> particular CPU. i might be imagining that, though.

I don't know about broken, but I heard that NT thread switching is slower
than linux process switching and that's why they created these new things
called "strings" (or something like that) which were even lighter weight
than threads.

As for binding processes, I do beleive there is a patch for that but in the
general case normal processor affinity is sufficient for 99% of people.
Binding drivers I'm not sure about, though they were trying to push network
stack processing onto the CPU of the process that was to receive it in the
end.

-- 
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog at svana.org>
http://svana.org/kleptog/
> It would be nice if someone came up with a certification system that
> actually separated those who can barely regurgitate what they crammed over
> the last few weeks from those who command secret ninja networking powers.