[concurrency-interest] Polling many queues with few threads

Ernst, Matthias matthias.ernst@coremedia.com
Thu, 25 Nov 2004 07:06:46 +0100


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C4D2B4.F1D736E8
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jean Morissette wrote:
> I would like to have your advice on one of my problem.  Suppose that =
we=20
> have N queues that are polled (not pooled) continously, in a =
round-robin=20
> schedule, by only M thread, where M < N.

I guess I wouldn't use N queues in the first place. Why not just one?
Which would come handy since one queue with M threads is actually a =
ThreadPoolExecutor.

Matthias

------_=_NextPart_001_01C4D2B4.F1D736E8
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
6.5.7226.0">
<TITLE>RE: [concurrency-interest] Polling many queues with few =
threads</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Jean Morissette wrote:<BR>
&gt; I would like to have your advice on one of my problem.&nbsp; =
Suppose that we<BR>
&gt; have N queues that are polled (not pooled) continously, in a =
round-robin<BR>
&gt; schedule, by only M thread, where M &lt; N.<BR>
<BR>
I guess I wouldn't use N queues in the first place. Why not just =
one?<BR>
Which would come handy since one queue with M threads is actually a =
ThreadPoolExecutor.<BR>
<BR>
Matthias<BR>
</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C4D2B4.F1D736E8--