That sounds weird to me. If you look carefully in the article above: 2 000 real threads, Mac OS crash
2,000 real threads doesn't make sense for parallel compute. i9 intel processors don't have 2,000 threads.
Now, 2,000+ "threads" or better yet async code DOES make sense for I/O. Because there is not real "work" being done.
But if you are doing compute bound work, 2k+ CPU threads makes no sense on a personal computer.
But 10 x more lightweight threads: Works fine. That can be real-life useful when designing a web framework for example.
100%, if your work is I/O bound, it is exceedingly useful. That is the point of my comment.
The example of the TCP echo server is a great example of I/O bound work.
Ok, thanks for replying. Agreed that 2k CPU threads sounds a bit weird
Are you sure you want to hide this comment? It will become hidden in your post, but will still be visible via the comment's permalink.
Hide child comments as well
Confirm
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
2,000 real threads doesn't make sense for parallel compute. i9 intel processors don't have 2,000 threads.
Now, 2,000+ "threads" or better yet async code DOES make sense for I/O. Because there is not real "work" being done.
But if you are doing compute bound work, 2k+ CPU threads makes no sense on a personal computer.
100%, if your work is I/O bound, it is exceedingly useful. That is the point of my comment.
The example of the TCP echo server is a great example of I/O bound work.
Ok, thanks for replying. Agreed that 2k CPU threads sounds a bit weird