|
|
|
|
|
by fauigerzigerk
3901 days ago
|
|
175 threads use a lot of memory and cause a lot of context switching. I would never write an application so that it needs 175 OS threads, because if it needs that many, how many am I going to need down the road? It's an ominous sign for scalability in my view, even if it works for a while. [Edit] I'm a assuming a CPU with 8 cores, not some 64 core monster. |
|
I imagine that context switching between 175 OS threads all in the same process wouldn't really be that big of a deal.https://www.quora.com/How-does-thread-switching-differ-from-...
Additionally there are many legitimate cases for for a lot of threads like disk IO. If you find your self having to push a lot of bytes to/from a high iops drive like an SSD / NVM drive. Unless you're doing large sequential transfers that you can do in one large call, you will needs submit many concurrent request to saturate the drive (via threads). Disk IO is not network IO.