 |
 |
|
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Kaz
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 24
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:40 am Post subject: |
 |
|
On the actual threading subject, and whether it benefits, or will benefit muds, I do actually have some relevant information.
The following is a link to a talk at the recent PDC conference by Herb Sutter, a well known author of high quality C++ books. Oh, and the chair of the ISO C++ Standards Committee.
Also, Google for "The free lunch is over".
http://microsoft.sitestream.com/PDC05/TLN/TLN309_files/Default.htm#nopreload=1&autostart=1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Lindahl
Joined: 29 May 2005
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A somewhat relevant link:
http://www.mudconnector.com/discuss/discuss.cgi?mode=MSG&area=adv_code&message=10847
I also wrote a brief outline of natural logic seperations in MUDs to aid multithreading, but I'm at work right now and don't have it on me. When I get home, I'll be sure to post it.
Basically, no matter what kind of synchronization you do for multithreading, contention is expensive. Anything you can do to reduce contention is going to give you performance benefits - logic seperation being the most obvious reduction method, and geographic partitioning (as the link describes) being another powerful reduction method for MUDs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
