[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: solaris2.6 threads

To: Vinod Nair <vnair@broadjump.com>
Subject: Re: solaris2.6 threads
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 21:41:07 -0700
Cc: "'openldap-software@openldap.org'" <openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org>, Vinod Nair <vnair@broadjump.com>
In-reply-to: <959C31D5DB12D311903C0090277B0C7E5D4A00@mercury.inhouse.bro adjump.com>

At 10:08 AM 5/15/00 -0500, Vinod Nair wrote: 
> Given the warnings about potential issues with pre-emptive threads, I wanted to  
> find out whether OpenLDAP 1.2.9 is any safer/better wrt to the the Solaris2.6 > pthreads. 

The warnings apply to all versions of OpenLDAP 1.x.

>Would using a single-CPU box, and not having a situation where there are >multiple concurrent writers help skirt around this problem till
>OpenLDAP 2.0 arrives ? 

If you want stability, use a non-preemptive threading system.

> If not, is GNU pthreads a reasonable alternative ? 

As in GNU Pth, yes. OpenLDAP 1.2.10 supports Pth native
interface (prior versions used its pthreads interface).

> I'm interested in hearing people's experience on this matter,
> especially if the system is in a production environment. 

Your mileage will vary.

Prev by Date: Re: OpenLDAP security woes.
Next by Date: object classes
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread