[concurrency-interest] Some interesting (confusing?) benchmark results

√iktor Ҡlang viktor.klang at gmail.com
Tue Feb 12 16:18:29 EST 2013


On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Kirk Pepperdine <kirk at kodewerk.com> wrote:

> >
> > Do you agree that thread pool sizing depends on type of work? (IO bound
> vs CPU bound, bursty vs steady etc etc)
> Yes
> > Do you agree that a JVM Thread is not a unit of parallelism?
> Yes
> > Do you agree that having more JVM Threads than hardware threads is bad
> for CPU-bound workloads?
> No, even with CPU bound workloads I have found that the hardware/OS is
> much better at managing many workloads across many threads than I am. So a
> few more threads is ok, many more threads is bad fast.
>

That's an interesting observation. Have any more data on that? (really
interested)
As I said earlier, for CPU-bound workloads we've seen the best performance
when only loading 60-70% of the cores (other threads exist on the machine
of course).

Cheers,

√


>
> Regards,
> Kirk




-- 
*Viktor Klang*
*Director of Engineering*
*
*
Typesafe <http://www.typesafe.com/> - The software stack for applications
that scale
Twitter: @viktorklang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20130212/492c09a0/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list