Related
I am following this example. Line#37 says that number of worker threads should be equal of number of cpu cores. Why is that so?
If there are 10k connections and my system has 8 cores, does that mean 8 worker threads will be processing 10k connections? Why shouldn't I increase this number?
Context Switching
For an OS to context switch between threads takes a little bit of time. Having a lot of threads, each one doing comparatively little work, means that the context switch time starts becoming a significant portion of the overall runtime of the application.
For example, it could take an OS about 10 microseconds to do a context switch; if the thread does only 15 microseconds worth of work before going back to sleep then 40% of the runtime is just context switching!
This is inefficient, and that sort of inefficiency really starts to show up when you're up-scaling as your hardware, power and cooling costs go through the roof. Having few threads means that the OS doesn't have to switch contexts anything like as much.
So in your case if your requirement is for the computer to handle 10,000 connections and you have 8 cores then the efficiency sweet spot will be 1250 connections per core.
More Clients Per Thread
In the case of a server handling client requests it comes down to how much work is involved in processing each client. If that is a small amount of work, then each thread needs to handle requests from a number of clients so that the application can handle a lot of clients without having a lot of threads.
In a network server this means getting familiar with the the select() or epoll() system call. When called these will both put the thread to sleep until one of the mentioned file descriptors becomes ready in some way. However if there's no other threads pestering the OS for runtime the OS won't necessarily need to perform a context switch; the thread can just sit there dozing until there's something to do (at least that's my understanding of what OSes do. Everyone, correct me if I'm wrong!). When some data turns up from a client it can resume a lot faster.
And this of course makes the thread's source code a lot more complicated. You can't do a blocking read of data from the clients for instance; being told by epoll() that a file descriptor has become ready for reading does not mean that all the data you're expecting to receive from the client can be read immediately. And if the thread stalls due to a bug that affects more than one client. But that's the price paid for attaining the highest possible efficiency.
And it's not necessarily the case that you would want just 8 threads to go with your 8 cores and 10,000 connections. If there's something that your thread has to do for each connection every time it handles a single connection then that's an overhead that would need to be minimised (by having more threads and fewer connections per thread). [The select() system call is like that, which is why epoll() got invented.] You have to balance that overhead up against the overhead of context switching.
10,000 file descriptors is a lot (too many?) for a single process in Linux, so you might have to have several processes instead of several threads. And then there's the small matter of whether the hardware is fundamentally able to support 10,000 within whatever response time / connection requirements your system has. If it doesn't then you're forced to distribute your application across two or more servers, and that can start getting really complicated!
Understanding exactly how many clients to handle per thread depends on what the processing is doing, whether there's harddisk activity involved, etc. So there's no one single answer; it's different for different applications, and also for the same application on different machines. Tuning the clients / thread to achieve peak efficiency is a really hard job. This is where profiling tools like dtrace on Solaris, ftrace on Linux, (especially when used like this, which I've used a lot on Linux on x86 hardware) etc. can help because they allow you to understand at a very fine scale precisely what runtime is involved in your thread handling a request from a client.
Outfits like Google are of course very keen on efficiency; they get through a lot of electricity. I gather that when Google choose a CPU, hard drive, memory, etc. to put into their famously home grown servers they measure performance in terms of "Searches per Watt". Obviously you have to be a pretty big outfit before you get that fastidious about things, but that's the way things go ultimately.
Other Efficiencies
Handling things like TCP network connections can take up a lot of CPU time in it's own right, and it can be difficult to understand whereabouts in a system all your CPU runtime has gone. For network connections things like TCP offload in the smarter NICs can have a real benefit, because that frees the CPU from the burden of doing things like the error correction calculations.
TCP offload mirrors what we do in the high speed large scale real time embedded signal processing world. The (weird) interconnects that we use require zero CPU time to run them. So all of the CPU time is dedicated to processing data, and specialised hardware looks after moving data around. That brings about some quite astonishing efficiencies, so one can build a system with more modest, lower cost, less power hungry CPUs.
Language can have a radical effect on efficiency too; Things like Ruby, PHP, Perl are all very well and good, but everyone who has used them initially but has then grown rapidly ended up going to something more efficient like Java/Scala, C++, etc.
Your question is even better than you think! :-P
If you do networking with libevent, it can do non-blocking I/O on sockets. One thread could do this (using one core), but that would under-utilize the CPU.
But if you do “heavy” file I/O, then there is no non-blocking interface to the kernel. (Many systems have nothing to do that at all, others have some half-baked stuff going on in that field, but non-portable. –Libevent doesn’t use that.) – If file I/O is bottle-necking your program/test, then a higher number of threads will make sense! If a hard-disk is used, and the i/o-scheduler is reordering requests to avoid disk-head-moves, etc. it will depend on how much requests the scheduler takes into account to do its job the best. 100 pending requests might work better then 8.
Why shouldn't you increase the thread number?
If non-blocking I/O is done: all cores are working with thread-count = core-count. More threads only means more thread-switching with no gain.
For blocking I/O: you should increase it!
Searching answers here for "thread affinity", I see a lot of interest in doing it but little justification for it save possibly getting stable QueryPerformanceTimer results.
Assuming a modern OS and a modern 2-4 socket workstation/server class machine with modern 4-6 core CPUs, what good reasons would anyone have for thinking they know better than their OS's scheduler ? Are there any real world situations where taking more control of thead affinity is the right thing to do ? What sort of performance benefits can be demonstrated ?
The last time I saw a really good case for setting thread affinity somewhere (as in, it was backed up by concrete results showing genuine and significant improvements in system performance), it was some obscure thing to do with Win2K device drivers. But I haven't seen anything like that in years so when someone tells me they need to control thread affinity (but not why) these days I am deeply sceptical... but curious to be shown otherwise.
The primary reason is if you have something that depends heavily upon caching. The OS scheduler doesn't necessarily take that into account to the degree you might like.
I use it to assign threads to cores; for example in a simulation you do the physics entirely on one core, and allow the rest of the computation to be executed on another one. It makes sense to be able to control this, if you're on a tight environment where you know the hardware.
Of course, configuring this needs to be done per system, so by default I let the OS decide the cores on which to run, but keep the option of restricting core usage.
In the OS kernel and sometimes in kernel mode drivers you need to perform the same action on every CPU (e.g. update a system register). You can do that in a loop in a single thread, changing the affinity on each iteration.
For desktops it's quite unnecessary.
But I can see some applications where it would help. For example the CPU cache likes it if the app that runs on it doesn't change.
Another possibility is you have a critical task - you give it an entire CPU, and the other tasks use the rest of the CPUs.
Or the opposite: You have some low priority tasks, you put them all on one CPU, then leave the others free for more important tasks (using process priority will give you most of this benefit without having affinity, but I can imagine some memory heavy cases where it wouldn't).
I would agree its best to leave to the CPU to figure this out in most situations. However, the most common reason to go for thread affinity as far as I have seen is when you need good cache dependency. In multiple CPU systems, when a particular CPU caches something individually for itself and if the same thing has been cached in some other CPU, then I believe it can automatically get invalidated on the other CPU. So if a particular thread keeps changing CPUs on which it executes, then the cache hit rate will be too less. So in this case I guess it makes sense for the programmer to be a better judge of the COU affinities.
I also think the above point by Ariel about making sure a critical task constantly gets a CPU without throttling other low priority processes also makes sense.
What are the main advantages of using a model for concurrency based on processes over one
based on threads and in what contexts is the latter appropriate?
Fault-tolerance and scalability are the main advantages of using Processes vs. Threads.
A system that relies on shared memory or some other kind of technology that is only available when using threads, will be useless when you want to run the system on multiple machines. Sooner or later you will need to communicate between different processes.
When using processes you are forced to deal with communication via messages, for example, this is the way Erlang handles communication. Data is not shared, so there is no risk of data corruption.
Another advantage of processes is that they can crash and you can feel relatively safe in the knowledge that you can just restart them (even across network hosts). However, if a thread crashes, it may crash the entire process, which may bring down your entire application. To illustrate: If an Erlang process crashes, you will only lose that phone call, or that webrequest, etc. Not the whole application.
In saying all this, OS processes also have many drawbacks that can make them harder to use, like the fact that it takes forever to spawn a new process. However, Erlang has it's own notion of processes, which are extremely lightweight.
With that said, this discussion is really a topic of research. If you want to get into more of the details, you can give Joe Armstrong's paper on fault-tolerant systems]1 a read, it explains a lot about Erlang and the philosophy that drives it.
The disadvantage of using a process-based model is that it will be slower. You will have to copy data between the concurrent parts of your program.
The disadvantage of using a thread-based model is that you will probably get it wrong. It may sound mean, but it's true-- show me code based on threads and I'll show you a bug. I've found bugs in threaded code that has run "correctly" for 10 years.
The advantages of using a process-based model are numerous. The separation forces you to think in terms of protocols and formal communication patterns, which means its far more likely that you will get it right. Processes communicating with each other are easier to scale out across multiple machines. Multiple concurrent processes allows one process to crash without necessarily crashing the others.
The advantage of using a thread-based model is that it is fast.
It may be obvious which of the two I prefer, but in case it isn't: processes, every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Threads are too hard: I haven't ever met anybody who could write correct multi-threaded code; those that claim to be able to usually don't know enough about the space yet.
In this case Processes are more independent of eachother, while Threads shares some resources e.g. memory. But in a general case Threads are more light-weight than Processes.
Erlang Processes is not the same thing as OS Processes. Erlang Processes are very light-weight and Erlang can have many Erlang Processes within the same OS Thread. See Technically why is processes in Erlang more efficient than OS threads?
First and foremost, processes differ from threads mostly in the way their memory is handled:
Process = n*Thread + memory region (n>=1)
Processes have their own isolated memory.
Processes can have multiple threads.
Processes are isolated from each other on the operating system level.
Threads share their memory with their peers in the process.
(This is often undesirable. There are libraries and methods out there to remedy this, but that is usually an artificial layer over operating system threads.)
The memory thing is the most important discerning factor, as it has certain implications:
Exchanging data between processes is slower than between threads. Breaking the process isolation always requires some involvement of kernel calls and memory remapping.
Threads are more lightweight than processes. The operating system has to allocate resources and do memory management for each process.
Using processes gives you memory isolation and synchronization. Common problems with access to memory shared between threads do not concern you. Since you have to make a special effort to share data between processes, you will most likely sync automatically with that.
Using processes gives you good (or ultimate) encapsulation. Since inter process communication needs special effort, you will be forced to define a clean interface. It is a good idea to break certain parts of your application out of the main executable. Maybe you can split dependencies like that.
e.g. Process_RobotAi <-> Process_RobotControl
The AI will have vastly different dependencies compared to the control component. The interface might be simple: Process_RobotAI --DriveXY--> Process_RobotControl.
Maybe you change the robot platform. You only have to implement a new RobotControl executable with that simple interface. You don't have to touch or even recompile anything in your AI component.
It will also, for the same reasons, speed up compilation in most cases.
Edit: Just for completeness I will shamelessly add what the others have reminded me of :
A crashing process does not (necessarily) crash your whole application.
In General:
Want to create something highly concurrent or synchronuous, like an algorithm with n>>1 instances running in parallel and sharing data, use threads.
Have a system with multiple components that do not need to share data or algorithms, nor do they exchange data too often, use processes. If you use a RPC library for the inter process communication, you get a network-distributable solution at no extra cost.
1 and 2 are the extreme and no-brainer scenarios, everything in between must be decided individually.
For a good (or awesome) example of a system that uses IPC/RPC heavily, have a look at ros.
I've been toying around with the Parallel library in .NET 4.0. Recently, I developed a custom ORM for some unusual read/write operations one of our large systems has to use. This allows me to decorate an object with attributes and have reflection figure out what columns it has to pull from the database, as well as what XML it has to output on writes.
Since I envision this wrapper to be reused in many projects, I'd like to squeeze as much speed out of it as possible. This library will mostly be used in .NET web applications. I'm testing the framework using a throwaway console application to poke at the classes I've created.
I've now learned a lesson of the overhead that multithreading comes with. Multithreading causes it to run slower. From reading around, it seems like it's intuitive to people who've been doing it for a long time, but it's actually counter-intuitive to me: how can running a method 30 times at the same time be slower than running it 30 times sequentially?
I don't think I'm causing problems by multiple threads having to fight over the same shared object (though I'm not good enough at it yet to tell for sure or not), so I assume the slowdown is coming from the overhead of spawning all those threads and the runtime keeping them all straight. So:
Though I'm doing it mainly as a learning exercise, is this pessimization? For trivial, non-IO tasks, is multithreading overkill? My main goal is speed, not responsiveness of the UI or anything.
Would running the same multithreading code in IIS cause it to speed up because of already-created threads in the thread pool, whereas right now I'm using a console app, which I assume would be single-threaded until I told it otherwise? I'm about to run some tests, but I figure there's some base knowledge I'm missing to know why it would be one way or the other. My console app is also running on my desktop with two cores, whereas a server for a web app would have more, so I might have to use that as a variable as well.
Thread's don't actually all run concurrently.
On a desktop machine I'm presuming you have a dual core CPU, (maybe a quad at most). This means only 2/4 threads can be running at the same time.
If you have spawned 30 threads, the OS is going to have to context switch between those 30 threads to keep them all running. Context switches are quite costly, so hence the slowdown.
As a basic suggestion, I'd aim for 1 thread per CPU if you are trying to optimise calculations. Any more than this and you're not really doing any extra work, you are just swapping threads in an out on the same CPU. Try to think of your computer as having a limited number of workers inside, you can't do more work concurrently than the number of workers you have available.
Some of the new features in the .net 4.0 parallel task library allow you to do things that account for scalability in the number of threads. For example you can create a bunch of tasks and the task parallel library will internally figure out how many CPUs you have available, and optimise the number of threads is creates/uses so as not to overload the CPUs, so you could create 30 tasks, but on a dual core machine the TP library would still only create 2 threads, and queue the . Obviously, this will scale very nicely when you get to run it on a bigger machine. Or you can use something like ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(...) to queue up a bunch of tasks, and the pool will automatically manage how many threads is uses to perform those tasks.
Yes there is a lot of overhead to thread creation, but if you are using the .net thread pool, (or the parallel task library in 4.0) .net will be managing your thread creation, and you may actually find it creates less threads than the number of tasks you have created. It will internally swap your tasks around on the available threads. If you actually want to control explicit creation of actual threads you would need to use the Thread class.
[Some cpu's can do clever stuff with threads and can have multiple Threads running per CPU - see hyperthreading - but check out your task manager, I'd be very surprised if you have more than 4-8 virtual CPUs on today's desktops]
There are so many issues with this that it pays to understand what is happening under the covers. I would highly recommend the "Concurrent Programming on Windows" book by Joe Duffy and the "Java Concurrency in Practice" book. The latter talks about processor architecture at the level you need to understand it when writing multithreaded code. One issue you are going to hit that's going to hurt your code is caching, or more likely the lack of it.
As has been stated there is an overhead to scheduling and running threads, but you may find that there is a larger overhead when you share data across threads. That data may be flushed from the processor cache into main memory, and that will cause serious slow downs to your code.
This is the sort of low-level stuff that managed environments are supposed to protect us from, however, when writing highly parallel code, this is exactly the sort of issue you have to deal with.
A colleague of mine recorded a screencast about the performance issue with Parallel.For and Parallel.ForEach which may help:
http://rocksolidknowledge.com/ScreenCasts.mvc/Watch?video=ParallelLoops.wmv
You're speaking of an ORM, so I presume some amount of I/O is going on. If this is the case, the overhead of thread creation and context switching is going to be comparatively non-existent.
Most likely, you're experiencing I/O contention: it can be slower (particularly on rotational hard drives, but also on other storage devices) to read the same set of data if you read it out of order than if you read it in-order. So, if you're executing 30 database queries, it's possible they'll run faster sequentially than in parallel if they're all backed by the same I/O device and the queries aren't in cache. Running them in parallel may cause the system to have a bunch of I/O read requests almost simultaneously, which may cause the OS to read little bits of each in turn - causing your drive head to jump back and forth, wasting precious milliseconds.
But that's just a guess; it's not possible to really determine what's causing your slowdown without knowing more.
Although thread creation is "extremely expensive" when compared to say adding two numbers, it's not usually something you'll easily overdo. If your operations are extremely short (say, a millisecond or less), using a thread-pool rather than new threads will noticeably save time. Generally though, if your operations are that short, you should reconsider the granularity of parallelism anyhow; perhaps you're better off splitting the computation into bigger chunks: for instance, by having a fairly low number of worker tasks which handle entire batches of smaller work-items at a time rather than each item separately.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed last year.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question last year and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
I've recently heard a few people say that in Linux, it is almost always better to use processes instead of threads, since Linux is very efficient in handling processes, and because there are so many problems (such as locking) associated with threads. However, I am suspicious, because it seems like threads could give a pretty big performance gain in some situations.
So my question is, when faced with a situation that threads and processes could both handle pretty well, should I use processes or threads? For example, if I were writing a web server, should I use processes or threads (or a combination)?
Linux uses a 1-1 threading model, with (to the kernel) no distinction between processes and threads -- everything is simply a runnable task. *
On Linux, the system call clone clones a task, with a configurable level of sharing, among which are:
CLONE_FILES: share the same file descriptor table (instead of creating a copy)
CLONE_PARENT: don't set up a parent-child relationship between the new task and the old (otherwise, child's getppid() = parent's getpid())
CLONE_VM: share the same memory space (instead of creating a COW copy)
fork() calls clone(least sharing) and pthread_create() calls clone(most sharing). **
forking costs a tiny bit more than pthread_createing because of copying tables and creating COW mappings for memory, but the Linux kernel developers have tried (and succeeded) at minimizing those costs.
Switching between tasks, if they share the same memory space and various tables, will be a tiny bit cheaper than if they aren't shared, because the data may already be loaded in cache. However, switching tasks is still very fast even if nothing is shared -- this is something else that Linux kernel developers try to ensure (and succeed at ensuring).
In fact, if you are on a multi-processor system, not sharing may actually be beneficial to performance: if each task is running on a different processor, synchronizing shared memory is expensive.
* Simplified. CLONE_THREAD causes signals delivery to be shared (which needs CLONE_SIGHAND, which shares the signal handler table).
** Simplified. There exist both SYS_fork and SYS_clone syscalls, but in the kernel, the sys_fork and sys_clone are both very thin wrappers around the same do_fork function, which itself is a thin wrapper around copy_process. Yes, the terms process, thread, and task are used rather interchangeably in the Linux kernel...
Linux (and indeed Unix) gives you a third option.
Option 1 - processes
Create a standalone executable which handles some part (or all parts) of your application, and invoke it separately for each process, e.g. the program runs copies of itself to delegate tasks to.
Option 2 - threads
Create a standalone executable which starts up with a single thread and create additional threads to do some tasks
Option 3 - fork
Only available under Linux/Unix, this is a bit different. A forked process really is its own process with its own address space - there is nothing that the child can do (normally) to affect its parent's or siblings address space (unlike a thread) - so you get added robustness.
However, the memory pages are not copied, they are copy-on-write, so less memory is usually used than you might imagine.
Consider a web server program which consists of two steps:
Read configuration and runtime data
Serve page requests
If you used threads, step 1 would be done once, and step 2 done in multiple threads. If you used "traditional" processes, steps 1 and 2 would need to be repeated for each process, and the memory to store the configuration and runtime data duplicated. If you used fork(), then you can do step 1 once, and then fork(), leaving the runtime data and configuration in memory, untouched, not copied.
So there are really three choices.
That depends on a lot of factors. Processes are more heavy-weight than threads, and have a higher startup and shutdown cost. Interprocess communication (IPC) is also harder and slower than interthread communication.
Conversely, processes are safer and more secure than threads, because each process runs in its own virtual address space. If one process crashes or has a buffer overrun, it does not affect any other process at all, whereas if a thread crashes, it takes down all of the other threads in the process, and if a thread has a buffer overrun, it opens up a security hole in all of the threads.
So, if your application's modules can run mostly independently with little communication, you should probably use processes if you can afford the startup and shutdown costs. The performance hit of IPC will be minimal, and you'll be slightly safer against bugs and security holes. If you need every bit of performance you can get or have a lot of shared data (such as complex data structures), go with threads.
Others have discussed the considerations.
Perhaps the important difference is that in Windows processes are heavy and expensive compared to threads, and in Linux the difference is much smaller, so the equation balances at a different point.
Once upon a time there was Unix and in this good old Unix there was lots of overhead for processes, so what some clever people did was to create threads, which would share the same address space with the parent process and they only needed a reduced context switch, which would make the context switch more efficient.
In a contemporary Linux (2.6.x) there is not much difference in performance between a context switch of a process compared to a thread (only the MMU stuff is additional for the thread).
There is the issue with the shared address space, which means that a faulty pointer in a thread can corrupt memory of the parent process or another thread within the same address space.
A process is protected by the MMU, so a faulty pointer will just cause a signal 11 and no corruption.
I would in general use processes (not much context switch overhead in Linux, but memory protection due to MMU), but pthreads if I would need a real-time scheduler class, which is a different cup of tea all together.
Why do you think threads are have such a big performance gain on Linux? Do you have any data for this, or is it just a myth?
I think everyone has done a great job responding to your question. I'm just adding more information about thread versus process in Linux to clarify and summarize some of the previous responses in context of kernel. So, my response is in regarding to kernel specific code in Linux. According to Linux Kernel documentation, there is no clear distinction between thread versus process except thread uses shared virtual address space unlike process. Also note, the Linux Kernel uses the term "task" to refer to process and thread in general.
"There are no internal structures implementing processes or threads, instead there is a struct task_struct that describe an abstract scheduling unit called task"
Also according to Linus Torvalds, you should NOT think about process versus thread at all and because it's too limiting and the only difference is COE or Context of Execution in terms of "separate the address space from the parent " or shared address space. In fact he uses a web server example to make his point here (which highly recommend reading).
Full credit to linux kernel documentation
If you want to create a pure a process as possible, you would use clone() and set all the clone flags. (Or save yourself the typing effort and call fork())
If you want to create a pure a thread as possible, you would use clone() and clear all the clone flags (Or save yourself the typing effort and call pthread_create())
There are 28 flags that dictate the level of resource sharing. This means that there are over 268 million flavours of tasks that you can create, depending on what you want to share.
This is what we mean when we say that Linux does not distinguish between a process and a thread, but rather alludes to any flow of control within a program as a task. The rationale for not distinguishing between the two is, well, not uniquely defining over 268 million flavours!
Therefore, making the "perfect decision" of whether to use a process or thread is really about deciding which of the 28 resources to clone.
How tightly coupled are your tasks?
If they can live independently of each other, then use processes. If they rely on each other, then use threads. That way you can kill and restart a bad process without interfering with the operation of the other tasks.
To complicate matters further, there is such a thing as thread-local storage, and Unix shared memory.
Thread-local storage allows each thread to have a separate instance of global objects. The only time I've used it was when constructing an emulation environment on linux/windows, for application code that ran in an RTOS. In the RTOS each task was a process with it's own address space, in the emulation environment, each task was a thread (with a shared address space). By using TLS for things like singletons, we were able to have a separate instance for each thread, just like under the 'real' RTOS environment.
Shared memory can (obviously) give you the performance benefits of having multiple processes access the same memory, but at the cost/risk of having to synchronize the processes properly. One way to do that is have one process create a data structure in shared memory, and then send a handle to that structure via traditional inter-process communication (like a named pipe).
In my recent work with LINUX is one thing to be aware of is libraries. If you are using threads make sure any libraries you may use across threads are thread-safe. This burned me a couple of times. Notably libxml2 is not thread-safe out of the box. It can be compiled with thread safe but that is not what you get with aptitude install.
I'd have to agree with what you've been hearing. When we benchmark our cluster (xhpl and such), we always get significantly better performance with processes over threads. </anecdote>
The decision between thread/process depends a little bit on what you will be using it to.
One of the benefits with a process is that it has a PID and can be killed without also terminating the parent.
For a real world example of a web server, apache 1.3 used to only support multiple processes, but in in 2.0 they added an abstraction so that you can swtch between either. Comments seems to agree that processes are more robust but threads can give a little bit better performance (except for windows where performance for processes sucks and you only want to use threads).
For most cases i would prefer processes over threads.
threads can be useful when you have a relatively smaller task (process overhead >> time taken by each divided task unit) and there is a need of memory sharing between them. Think a large array.
Also (offtopic), note that if your CPU utilization is 100 percent or close to it, there is going to be no benefit out of multithreading or processing. (in fact it will worsen)
Threads -- > Threads shares a memory space,it is an abstraction of the CPU,it is lightweight.
Processes --> Processes have their own memory space,it is an abstraction of a computer.
To parallelise task you need to abstract a CPU.
However the advantages of using a process over a thread is security,stability while a thread uses lesser memory than process and offers lesser latency.
An example in terms of web would be chrome and firefox.
In case of Chrome each tab is a new process hence memory usage of chrome is higher than firefox ,while the security and stability provided is better than firefox.
The security here provided by chrome is better,since each tab is a new process different tab cannot snoop into the memory space of a given process.
Multi-threading is for masochists. :)
If you are concerned about an environment where you are constantly creating threads/forks, perhaps like a web server handling requests, you can pre-fork processes, hundreds if necessary. Since they are Copy on Write and use the same memory until a write occurs, it's very fast. They can all block, listening on the same socket and the first one to accept an incoming TCP connection gets to run with it. With g++ you can also assign functions and variables to be closely placed in memory (hot segments) to ensure when you do write to memory, and cause an entire page to be copied at least subsequent write activity will occur on the same page. You really have to use a profiler to verify that kind of stuff but if you are concerned about performance, you should be doing that anyway.
Development time of threaded apps is 3x to 10x times longer due to the subtle interaction on shared objects, threading "gotchas" you didn't think of, and very hard to debug because you cannot reproduce thread interaction problems at will. You may have to do all sort of performance killing checks like having invariants in all your classes that are checked before and after every function and you halt the process and load the debugger if something isn't right. Most often it's embarrassing crashes that occur during production and you have to pore through a core dump trying to figure out which threads did what. Frankly, it's not worth the headache when forking processes is just as fast and implicitly thread safe unless you explicitly share something. At least with explicit sharing you know exactly where to look if a threading style problem occurs.
If performance is that important, add another computer and load balance. For the developer cost of debugging a multi-threaded app, even one written by an experienced multi-threader, you could probably buy 4 40 core Intel motherboards with 64gigs of memory each.
That being said, there are asymmetric cases where parallel processing isn't appropriate, like, you want a foreground thread to accept user input and show button presses immediately, without waiting for some clunky back end GUI to keep up. Sexy use of threads where multiprocessing isn't geometrically appropriate. Many things like that just variables or pointers. They aren't "handles" that can be shared in a fork. You have to use threads. Even if you did fork, you'd be sharing the same resource and subject to threading style issues.
If you need to share resources, you really should use threads.
Also consider the fact that context switches between threads are much less expensive than context switches between processes.
I see no reason to explicitly go with separate processes unless you have a good reason to do so (security, proven performance tests, etc...)