We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
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
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