tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519994871712148194.post6107271474656958765..comments2023-06-18T14:03:41.747+05:30Comments on dotnetstep: ThreadPool Wait For All Thread To CompleteUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519994871712148194.post-8483043124045414712009-11-17T09:57:05.227+05:302009-11-17T09:57:05.227+05:30I am not able to follow your code. I am not an exp...I am not able to follow your code. I am not an expert at .NET but am familiar with general terms. Can you explain what your code does?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15353976763327961673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519994871712148194.post-32774132544888054922009-03-31T22:38:00.000+05:302009-03-31T22:38:00.000+05:30This is not really bad. I know that WaitHandles ha...This is not really bad. I know that WaitHandles has limitation of 64. This solution is for who must need to waitfor more then 64 threads. <BR/><BR/>Actually thread is not run one after another all thread started working as i used threadpool that depend on threadpool size. <BR/><BR/>WaitForAll function WaitFor single thread to complete the task , it does not mean that other thread not working. If they working and they completed their task then when in loop it comes to check for signal and it moves to next thread as all ready signal set.<BR/><BR/>If any body have other solution please suggest me.<BR/><BR/>For Limitation of 64 wait handle and how to solve it using 64 chucks i explained at following location<BR/><BR/>http://dotnetstep.blogspot.com/2009/01/waithandlewaitall-limitation.htmldotnetstephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03609915059669757510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519994871712148194.post-35090069933037000532009-03-31T19:06:00.000+05:302009-03-31T19:06:00.000+05:30IS bad. :)Your Thread run one after another.MultiT...IS bad. :)<BR/>Your Thread run one after another.<BR/><BR/>MultiThread is better with 64 WaitHandles<BR/><BR/>RonnyRonnyhttp://www.xlabor.denoreply@blogger.com