[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Woody to Sarge potential thread issue



Brooks R. Robinson wrote:

Greetings,
	I am moving a server from Woody to Sarge that has some custom software on
it for a time clock system that interacts with Postgresql.  I am starting
with a fresh hardware and a recent install of Sarge.  This time clock
software is threaded so that each time clock interacts with the same daemon,
but it splits off a thread to service each clock.  Under Woody, I see each
thread as a separate process under top, but I'm not seeing this same thing
under Sarge.  Is this normal, or do I have more problems that I realize?

System under Woody:
debian:~$ uname -a
Linux debian.chanceind.com 2.4.26 #1 Fri Jun 18 10:00:33 CDT 2004 i686
unknown
debian:~$ gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95.4/specs
gcc version 2.95.4 20011002 (Debian prerelease)

System under Sarge:
debian2:~$ uname -a
Linux debian2 2.6.11.7 #1 SMP Fri Apr 29 14:32:09 CDT 2005 i686 GNU/Linux
debian2:~$ gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/3.3.5/specs
Configured with:
../src/configure -v --enable-languages=c,c++,java,f77,pascal,objc,ada,treela
ng --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info --with-gx
x-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/3.3 --enable-shared --enable-__cxa_atexit --w
ith-system-zlib --enable-nls --without-included-gettext --enable-clocale=gnu
--enable-debug --enable-java-gc=boehm --enable-java-awt=xlib --enable-objc-
gc i486-linux
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-12)

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Brooks
Hi,

This is in fact correct, it has got to do with the new threading model
called NPTL (Native POSIX Thread Library) that is now used if kernel 2.6
is present. Under this new model threads are classed as Lightweight
Processes (LWP) and ps only shows them if you use it with the -L or H
(i.e. ps aux -L or ps auxH).

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPTL

HTH,
Chris

--
Chris Boot
bootc@bootc.net
http://www.bootc.net/





Reply to: