[omniORB] omninames: cannot create a worker fot this endpoint
duncan at grisby.org
Mon Oct 23 17:17:16 BST 2006
On Thursday 12 October, Bruno Carlus wrote:
> When i'm using a thread pool omniNames uses about 50% of CPU !
> If I increase the size of the pool (250) charge decreases to 15%.
It sounds like your clients are hitting omniNames really hard. What kind
of usage pattern and naming structure do you have? How many names do
you have in each naming context?
> With no pool I have about 1000 threads...Is it a solution to use a
> pool of up to 1000 threads...?
> By the way what is the difference for the system between a pool of n
> thread and n threads?
In thread pool mode, the pool size places an upper bound on the number
of threads, and calls are spread between the threads, even if you have
more network connections than threads; in thread per connection mode,
each network connection gets its own thread, so you always have at least
as many threads as connections. Since you were running out of threads,
thread pool mode is better for you. If you find you need a large number
of threads in the pool, then that isn't a particular problem. Just pick
a number that's a fair bit smaller than the limit of the total threads a
process can have.
-- Duncan Grisby --
-- duncan at grisby.org --
-- http://www.grisby.org --
More information about the omniORB-list