Ketil Malde wrote:
My apologies for side-tracking, but does anybody have performance numbers for STM? I have an application waiting to be written using STM, boldly parallelizing where no man has parallelized before, but if it doesn't make it faster, the whole excercise gets a lot less convincing. Most material I find seems to be of the proof-of-concept kind.
Faster than what? I've used STM for a real application, and the main benefit I saw was in using a set of primitives that facilitate writing concurrent code that is clearer and more likely to be correct. Performance is fine - given it is IO bound, the time taken by STM is not an issue in this case. Are you considering using STM just to make otherwise pure code run in parallel on multiple cores? If so, then perhaps the pure parallelisation primitives are more appropriate. Tim