>Also, my belief is that JVM itself adds lots of overhead.
The JVM has ~nothing to do with the scheduling of platform threads
>and there any benchmarks saying it is couple hundred threads, and not 100k threads?..
It depends greatly on your hardware
>couple hundred is about thread per core on modern CPUs..
It depends on the hardware, of course
Overall, yes, you could probably run a lot of concurrent processes on a c7i.48xlarge in 2023. But why would you want to do that when, if you used virtual threads (or async), you could do the same work on an c7i.large? That's the whole point of this. There's no reason to waste CPU and memory on kernel context switching overhead.
The JVM has ~nothing to do with the scheduling of platform threads
>and there any benchmarks saying it is couple hundred threads, and not 100k threads?..
It depends greatly on your hardware
>couple hundred is about thread per core on modern CPUs..
It depends on the hardware, of course
Overall, yes, you could probably run a lot of concurrent processes on a c7i.48xlarge in 2023. But why would you want to do that when, if you used virtual threads (or async), you could do the same work on an c7i.large? That's the whole point of this. There's no reason to waste CPU and memory on kernel context switching overhead.