提高:: ASIO线程池与io_service_per_cpu设计 [英] boost::asio threadpool vs. io_service_per_cpu design

问题描述

目前我不确定，我尽量让高性能的服务器，我得到了6Core CPU，所以如果我想用io_service_per_cpu的设计，我有6 io_service's。

Currently I´m not sure, I try to make a high-performance server, I got a 6Core CPU, so if I would use the "io_service_per_cpu" design, I have 6 io_service´s.

我已经听说线程池的设计isn't最好的一个，但我不确定这一点。

I already heard that the threadpool design isn´t the best one, but I´m not sure about that.

你有什么样的知识？有人已经取得与每一个压力测试，还是其他什么东西？

What knowledge do you have? Someone already made a Stress test with each, or something else?

推荐答案

在我的经验，这是大大更容易接近异步应用设计，顺序如下：

In my experience it is vastly easier to approach asynchronous application design with the following order:

1. 单线程和单一的 io_service对象


2. 多个线程，每个线程调用 :: io_service对象的run（）从单一的 io_service对象。使用<一个href=\"http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_46_0/doc/html/boost_asio/overview/core/strands.html\">strands对于需要访问共享数据结构的处理程序。


3. io_service对象每个CPU

1. single thread and a single io_service
2. multiple threads, each invoking io_service::run() from a single io_service. Use strands for handlers that require access to shared data structures.
3. io_service per cpu

为每个设计之间改变的动机应该分析您的应用程序后进行。注意，<一href=\"http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6143739/boostasync-write-fails-after-writing-for-some-time/6158561#6158561\">HTTP服务器2 例子只说明了如何使用 io_service对象每个CPU，它不会告诉你何时或为什么要使用这样的设计。

The motivation for changing between each of these designs should be done after profiling your application. Note that the HTTP Server 2 example only shows how to use an io_service per CPU, it does not show you when or why to use such a design.

这篇关于提高:: ASIO线程池与io_service_per_cpu设计的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！