Asynchronous Behaviour (15 Jun 2002)
I played around with these ideas a lot during Whiterose development and my views might be a little clouded because Whiterose isn't a typical network server (the Freenet protocol is far more complex than most). During Whiterose development I settled on syncthreading as a good model for managing state. This text gives a good overview of syncthreading (by my definition). It was written as a technical report for Uprizer, but since it says nothing about Uprizer specifically I doubt they have a problem with my making it public
Now, the SEDA people have a good paper with some neat graphs of throughput with threaded and event based models which certainly suggest that no one should consider writing threaded servers if they want it to scale.
However, threaded systems (certainly syncthreaded ones) are event based. They're fundamentally the same thing.
With an event system you loop over your input queue call (be it select, poll, kqueue etc) and, for each event, feed the event into the finite state machine (FSM) for that transaction. The FSM makes some quick, non-blocking, change in its state and returns. Repeat.
The only difference with a threaded model is that the FSM is a stack and some registers. You still feed the event into the FSM and it still returns quickly. If you have syncthreads you are doing this explicitly, otherwise the kernel is doing it for you. (if you don't get what I'm saying here, read the Syncthreading paper and come back).
In an ideal world the FSMs would be fully self contained and so it wouldn't matter if they were updated at the same time (e.g. preemptive threads). Sometimes, however, they have to interact because the protocol requires it. In this case there is a fundamental difference between preemptive threads and most event-based designs.
So, given that one caveat, if you are saying that threaded systems are slower, or have less throughput etc you are really complaining about the quality of your threading system.
Given that I've just said that syncthreading and event-models are, basically, the same - how can I say I support syncthreading?
Simply because the FSMs are so much nicer to code as threads when they are anything more than the most basic systems. Threading basically loads and saves your state for you (while event models make you update structures manually) and threading lets you have state encoded in the program counter. A linear progression of states is written as a linear progression of statements and loops of states are written as loops in the code. It's just so much easier to work with.