PacketID: 27715

[hadeset]

No dudes, keep going, because these forums are so **** quiet all the time, if there is no argument going on.

[Korvacs]

Originally Posted by hadeset

No dudes, keep going, because these forums are so **** quiet all the time, if there is no argument going on.

There's no point continuing a discussion where only 1 side of the argument can actually raise valid reasons for their argument.

Sorry to disappoint you, but its not a discussion any more at that point. One side is just in denial.

[SteveRambo]

Originally Posted by Korvacs

There's no point continuing a discussion where only 1 side of the argument can actually raise valid reasons for their argument.

Sorry to disappoint you, but its not a discussion any more at that point. One side is just in denial.

Haha, "your" such a funny guy.

[Korvacs]

Originally Posted by SteveRambo

Haha, "your" such a funny guy.

Point and case, the grammar police have arrived, when you can't win an argument point out their grammatical mistakes. The internet everyone.

[SteveRambo]

Originally Posted by Korvacs

Point and case, the grammar police have arrived, when you can't win an argument point out their grammatical mistakes. The internet everyone.

Oh, and what was your approach again? Delcaring that I'm "in denial" and saying that it's not a discussion anymore. Yeah, that's way better. I'm just trying to take it to your level of maturity.

[Korvacs]

Originally Posted by SteveRambo

Oh, and what was your approach again? Delcaring that I'm "in denial" and saying that it's not a discussion anymore. Yeah, that's way better.

I raised valid points, its no more of a challenge to get multi-threaded packet processing to work than single threaded. It scales better. Its more efficient. It offers better performance.

Your argument for single threaded was that it's less error prone (which has nothing to do with the threading model) and it's easier to debug, which isn't even true nowadays.

No need to get all pissy about it, either form a good argument or be quiet, your choice.

[SteveRambo]

Originally Posted by Korvacs

I raised valid points, its no more of a challenge to get multi-threaded packet processing to work than single threaded. It scales better. Its more efficient. It offers better performance.

Your argument for single threaded was that it's less error prone (which has nothing to do with the threading model) and it's easier to debug, which isn't even true nowadays.

No need to get all pissy about it, either form a good argument or be quiet, your choice.

If you can't see that less complexity (which you achieve by using a single-threaded packet processing approach) in your system is an advantage, then you're the one in denial here.

And perhaps it's not more of a challenge to get multi-threaded packet processing to work than a single-threaded approach, but it IS a lot more challenging to get it work correctly. Unless, of course, you don't actually care if your packets are processed in the right order.

[Korvacs]

Single-threaded isn't less complex than multi-threaded, try it. And no, its not alot more of a challenge to get it working correctly with packets being processed in the right order.

Try it.

[SteveRambo]

Originally Posted by Korvacs

Single-threaded isn't less complex than multi-threaded, try it. And no, its not alot more of a challenge to get it working correctly with packets being processed in the right order.

Try it.

Multi-threaded processing of packets requires you to make sure that packets are still processed in the right order. You somehow have to come up with a way to make sure that this is done correctly. That, by definition, makes it more complex.
With single-threaded packet processing, you do not have to worry about this, because you can be sure that packets are always processed in the correct order. Thus it is less complex.

[Korvacs]

Originally Posted by SteveRambo

Multi-threaded processing of packets requires you to make sure that packets are still processed in the right order. You somehow have to come up with a way to make sure that this is done correctly. That, by definition, makes it more complex.
With single-threaded packet processing, you do not have to worry about this, because you can be sure that packets are always processed in the correct order. Thus it is less complex.

Looks like you have no intention of trying it, and therefore there's no point continuing, sorry. Read the quote.

[SteveRambo]

Originally Posted by Korvacs

Looks like you have no intention of trying it, and therefore there's no point continuing, sorry. Read the quote.

Looks like you have no intention of reasoning about actual logic, and therefore there's no point continuing, sorry. Read the quote.

[Spirited]

I recommend that this thread be closed. The thread has been answered, and at this point, it's just one member causing problems for the community and insulting members. There's really no need to have a thread like this remain open.

[SteveRambo]

Originally Posted by Spirited

I recommend that this thread be closed. The thread has been answered, and at this point, it's just one member causing problems for the community and insulting members. There's really no need to have a thread like this remain open.

Originally Posted by Spirited

Keep your head up your *** and continue using your terrible practices. Have fun.

^ Is that the insulting you're talking about? I don't think that's a reason to close the thread bro, I don't mind it.

[Spirited]

You're fueling an argument. That's a violation of the board's rules; it's called baiting members. Therefore, with the thread resolved, it should be closed.

[Y u k i]

I disagree. as the thread creator, I dont want it to be closed. Its acctually intressting. Always been hooked by multithreading. Please, continue