<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why Processes Scale Better Than Threads</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thejackol.com/2006/08/30/why-processes-scale-better-than-threads/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thejackol.com/2006/08/30/why-processes-scale-better-than-threads/</link>
	<description>01100010 01101100 01100101 01101000</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:48:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Udi Dahan - The Software Simplist</title>
		<link>http://www.thejackol.com/2006/08/30/why-processes-scale-better-than-threads/comment-page-1/#comment-30903</link>
		<dc:creator>Udi Dahan - The Software Simplist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:28:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thejackol.com/2006/08/30/why-processes-scale-better-than-threads/#comment-30903</guid>
		<description>If you were to do multi-threaded design similar to how you do multi-process design, you&#039;d have a good chance of reaping the gains of both worlds.

I&#039;d sum it up by saying that focusing on throughput, instead of latency, is key.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you were to do multi-threaded design similar to how you do multi-process design, you&#8217;d have a good chance of reaping the gains of both worlds.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d sum it up by saying that focusing on throughput, instead of latency, is key.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
