2 ms·

If I was doing network I/O then there's a chance that threads would be faster... but you do realize that would also be multiprocessing on separate physical CPUs

If I was doing network I/O then there's a chance that threads would be faster... but you do realize that would also be multiprocessing on separate physical CPUs right? A separate computer, running a separate process, is processing your request on the network at the same time. That's how async works. It's really just an illusion of single-thread paralellism. Anyways, the original scenario didn't require any network services and hashing each data chunk and writing to ramdisk really was instant. My script originally was supposed to enable integrity checks and deduplication of files on separate hard drives. There's no point turning it into a webapp just to shoehorn async in there. Also this is a dumb conversation. I didn't actually run the benchmark. I just lied to you because I wanted to see you waste hours of your life typing out a wall of text for someone who doesn't care what you think. Also I still think you have no idea what you're talking about.

Geminidog 6y ago
>Also this is a dumb conversation. I didn't actually run the benchmark. I just lied to you because I wanted to see you waste hours of your life typing out a wall of text for someone who doesn't care what you think. Also I still think you have no idea what you're talking about. I was trying out of my heart to help out someone who didn't know anything. Looks like you took my altruism and threw it on the ground and stepped on it. >If I was doing network I/O then there's a chance that threads would be faster... but you do realize that would also be multiprocessing on separate physical CPUs right? Your HDD has it's own processor inside of it that handles reads and writes. Your CPU only sends it commands. So it's the same thing either way. It's just servers are designed to be hit by 200000 simultaneous requests, HDDs are not. >That's how async works. It's really just an illusion of single-thread paralellism. Except IO messages travel down the wire in parallel. This is what you need to get through your head. For compute, time is divided among threads in a single core but not for IO. >Anyways, the original scenario didn't require any network services and hashing each data chunk and writing to ramdisk really was instant. My script originally was supposed to enable integrity checks and deduplication of files on separate hard drives. There's no point turning it into a webapp just to shoehorn async in there. I didn't tell you to turn it into a webapp. I told you that your test didn't make sense and I told you to run a completely different test. I didn't tell you to shoehorn your app. If you're using sockets the API for interfacing with IO is exactly the same whether it's web OR an HDD. No shoehorning. HDD still can benefit from async.

Geminidog 6y ago

>Also this is a dumb conversation. I didn't actually run the benchmark. I just lied to you because I wanted to see you waste hours of your life typing out a wall of text for someone who doesn't care what you think. Also I still think you have no idea what you're talking about. I was trying out of my heart to help out someone who didn't know anything. Looks like you took my altruism and threw it on the ground and stepped on it. >If I was doing network I/O then there's a chance that threads would be faster... but you do realize that would also be multiprocessing on separate physical CPUs right? Your HDD has it's own processor inside of it that handles reads and writes. Your CPU only sends it commands. So it's the same thing either way. It's just servers are designed to be hit by 200000 simultaneous requests, HDDs are not. >That's how async works. It's really just an illusion of single-thread paralellism. Except IO messages travel down the wire in parallel. This is what you need to get through your head. For compute, time is divided among threads in a single core but not for IO. >Anyways, the original scenario didn't require any network services and hashing each data chunk and writing to ramdisk really was instant. My script originally was supposed to enable integrity checks and deduplication of files on separate hard drives. There's no point turning it into a webapp just to shoehorn async in there. I didn't tell you to turn it into a webapp. I told you that your test didn't make sense and I told you to run a completely different test. I didn't tell you to shoehorn your app. If you're using sockets the API for interfacing with IO is exactly the same whether it's web OR an HDD. No shoehorning. HDD still can benefit from async.