Develop Reference

ThreadPool thread doing I/O operation - can thread be reused while waiting?

I have been reading a bit about async/await vs ThreadPool vs Threads, and I have to admit, I'm not fully clear on the details. There is one specific question that I think I have the answer to, but I can't say for sure.
I am also aware of the many many questions on SO and elsewhere, where these questiosn are being discussed and explained. I have read a fair few here on SO, but I haven't found a clear answer, or at least as clear as I'd like.
What I gathered:
Using async/await in an I/O operation, will make that thread available to use for other things, while the I/O operation continues elsewhere
For a server application, this means higher throughput etc
However, a collegue said something like this:
that using a ThreadPool to execute the same I/O operation would behave almost the same as async/await
that when the ThreadPool thread "hands over" the I/O operation to the OS, it might wait for the answer, but that it won't matter much, since there is no work done on the CPU (the thread is waiting), and thus, the ThreadPool/OS/framework can use or spawn another thread to do some other work.
Since the threadpool has a limit of some 32000+ threads, it wouldn't matter much, since it could just use more threads. The cost for a thread is very small, just a few bytes of memory
So, what I am asking is:
Does the Thread from a ThreadPool block in I/O operations?
Does it matter if it does, since the OS/framework/Threadpool can just use another thread from the pool if needed for some other work?
Bottom line: I/O operations with async/await or ThreadPool; does it matter for efficiency and throughput?
Please note that I am not discussing the client-side of things, just from a server perspective.
And sorry in advance if I missed an exact answer to this, I have looked =)

The real issue is not "thread pool vs. async/await", it's synchronous I/O vs. asynchronous I/O. [1]
On Windows, threads are relatively expensive objects -- a thread has a lot of OS bookkeeping associated with it, not to mention 1 MB of preallocated stack space. This puts a fairly low cap on how many threads the system will even support, and even when you don't hit that cap, context switching between all those threads is not cheap either. That "32,000 threads" limit is a strictly theoretical one, and highly optimistic about how many threads you can have and still be responsive! [2]
Enter asynchronous I/O, which is optimized to use only as many threads as necessary (usually some conservative multiple of the number of physical processor cores in the system), ideally never even creating new threads beyond the initial batch. These threads are dedicated to handling completed I/O operations by removing them from a queue (known as a completion port). While an asynchronous operation is in progress, no thread is dedicated to it at all, not even as an item on a wait list (Stephen Cleary has a nice blog post about it that explains this in more detail). Not much imagination is needed to think about what's more efficient:
A few thousand individual threads that each wait on a particular operation, which have to be woken up and switched to (and between) depending on what operation(s) completed; or
A few dozen threads (if that), each of which can handle any completed operation, so that only as many ever need to run as necessary to be responsive.
As it turns out, the latter scales much better than the former; the "thread per request" model which is common in naive server code quickly shows its limits, even when you use a thread pool to reduce the creation of new threads. Note that this was an issue long before async/await was ever a thing, and so is the solution Windows went with; async/await is just a new way of writing code to use the existing mechanisms.
Are you likely to notice a difference with only a few requests in flight at a time? No. But since async/await essentially allows you to write code that looks synchronous but has the scalability of asynchronous I/O "for free", why would you not choose to use that in favor of synchronous I/O queued to the thread pool?
[1] Turns out Stephen Cleary already wrote most of what's in this answer a few years ago. I recommend you read that as well.
[2] Here's an older post by Mark Russinovich where he actually tries to squeeze as many threads out of the system as possible -- just for fun and profit. He "only" gets to 55K on a 64-bit machine before all resources are gone, and that's with adjusting the default stack size, and without doing any actually useful work. On a modern system you could probably get more, but the real question should not be "how many threads can I have" -- if it is, you're Doing it Wrong.

Task Parallel Library and IIS worker Threads?

I want to use Task Parallel Library for some calculation intensive tasks, but I have been told by a colleague there is a huge overhead for IIS creating worker threads.
I am not sure quite what is done when you call Task.Factory.StartNew()...say 100 times. How does IIS handle this? Is is a huge risk, or is there ways to make this very beneficial for an application?

First Tasks != Threads. You may have many tasks being serviced by few threads (which are already being pooled).
As a general rule, I'm against running long running processes on web servers. There are tons of problems keeping long running jobs up and you tend to reduce your web servers scalability, especially if you are paralellizing long running, cpu intensive jobs. Don't forget the optimal number of threads to have running on a machine is equal to the number of "logical" cores. You want to avoid creating excess threads (each managed thread eats something like a meg in overhead). Running cpu intensive jobs takes cpu time away from serving requests.
In my opinion the best way to use tpl on a web server, is to use it with the goal in the mind that you are making requests as non blocking as possible, which allows the greatest number of requests to be served with the smallest number of threads. Keep in mind that many people make the decision that the extra scale gained by having highly asynchronous request handing is not worth the extra complexity. Depends on your specific case.
So in short, running many long running cpu bound tasks on a web server risks your scalability. Doesn't really matter if you are using tasks, threads, backgroundworkers, or the threadpool. It boils down to the same thing.

One of the great things about the Task abstraction is that it abstracts creating threads away. What that means is that the TPL (actually, the ThreadPool) can decide what the best amount of actual threads is. Because of this, creating 100 Tasks most likely won't create 100 Threads. Because of that, you don't have to worry about the overhead of creating Threads.
But it also depends on what kind of Tasks they are. If you have 100 Tasks that perform some long IO-bound operations and so they block most of the time, that's not a good use of TPL and your code will be quite inefficient (and you may actually end up with 100 Threads).
On the other hand, if you have 100 CPU-bound, relatively short Tasks, that's the sweet spot of TPL and you will get good efficiency.
If you are really concerned about efficiency, you should also know that Tasks do have some overhead. Because of that, in some cases it might make sense to merge multiple Tasks into one larger one to make the overhead smaller. Or you can use something that already does that: Parallel.ForEach or Parallel.For, if they fit your use case. As another advantage, code using them will be more readable than using Tasks manually.

How about just creating a service to handle this work? You'll be much better off in terms of scaling and can isolate that unit of work nicely... even if the work is compute-bound.
In my opinion - don't use the Thread Pool/BackgroundWorker/Thread in ASP.NET. In your case, the TPL simply wraps the thread pool. It's usually more trouble than it's worth.

Threading overheads are the same for any host. Has nothing to do with IIS, at least when it comes to performance.
There are other concerns as well. For example, at application shutdown, user threads are rudely aborted.

How do I pick the best number of threads for hyptherthreading/multicore?

I have some embarrassingly-parallelizable work in a .NET 3.5 console app and I want to take advantage of hyperthreading and multi-core processors. How do I pick the best number of worker threads to utilize either of these the best on an arbitrary system? For example, if it's a dual core I will want 2 threads; quad core I will want 4 threads. What I'm ultimately after is determining the processor characteristics so I can know how many threads to create.
I'm not asking how to split up the work nor how to do threading, I'm asking how do I determine the "optimal" number of the threads on an arbitrary machine this console app will run on.

I'd suggest that you don't try to determine it yourself. Use the ThreadPool and let .NET manage the threads for you.

You can use Environment.ProcessorCount if that's the only thing you're after. But usually using a ThreadPool is indeed the better option.
The .NET thread pool also has provisions for sometimes allocating more threads than you have cores to maximise throughput in certain scenarios where many threads are waiting for I/O to finish.

The correct number is obviously 42.
Now on the serious note. Just use the thread pool, always.
1) If you have a lengthy processing task (ie. CPU intensive) that can be partitioned into multiple work piece meals then you should partition your task and then submit all individual work items to the ThreadPool. The thread pool will pick up work items and start churning on them in a dynamic fashion as it has self monitoring capabilities that include starting new threads as needed and can be configured at deployment by administrators according to the deployment site requirements, as opposed to pre-compute the numbers at development time. While is true that the proper partitioning size of your processing task can take into account the number of CPUs available, the right answer depends so much on the nature of the task and the data that is not even worth talking about at this stage (and besides the primary concerns should be your NUMA nodes, memory locality and interlocked cache contention, and only after that the number of cores).
2) If you're doing I/O (including DB calls) then you should use Asynchronous I/O and complete the calls in ThreadPool called completion routines.
These two are the the only valid reasons why you should have multiple threads, and they're both best handled by using the ThreadPool. Anything else, including starting a thread per 'request' or 'connection' are in fact anti patterns on the Win32 API world (fork is a valid pattern in *nix, but definitely not on Windows).
For a more specialized and way, way more detailed discussion of the topic I can only recommend the Rick Vicik papers on the subject:
designing-applications-for-high-performance-part-1.aspx
designing-applications-for-high-performance-part-ii.aspx
designing-applications-for-high-performance-part-iii.aspx

The optimal number would just be the processor count. Optimally you would always have one thread running on a CPU (logical or physical) to minimise context switches and the overhead that has with it.
Whether that is the right number depends (very much as everyone has said) on what you are doing. The threadpool (if I understand it correctly) pretty much tries to use as few threads as possible but spins up another one each time a thread blocks.
The blocking is never optimal but if you are doing any form of blocking then the answer would change dramatically.
The simplest and easiest way to get good (not necessarily optimal) behaviour is to use the threadpool. In my opinion its really hard to do any better than the threadpool so thats simply the best place to start and only ever think about something else if you can demonstrate why that is not good enough.

A good rule of the thumb, given that you're completely CPU-bound, is processorCount+1.
That's +1 because you will always get some tasks started/stopped/interrupted and n tasks will almost never completely fill up n processors.

The only way is a combination of data and code analysis based on performance data.
Different CPU families and speeds vs. memory speed vs other activities on the system are all going to make the tuning different.
Potentially some self-tuning is possible, but this will mean having some form of live performance tuning and self adjustment.

Or even better than the ThreadPool, use .NET 4.0 Task instances from the TPL. The Task Parallel Library is built on a foundation in the .NET 4.0 framework that will actually determine the optimal number of threads to perform the tasks as efficiently as possible for you.

I read something on this recently (see the accepted answer to this question for example).
The simple answer is that you let the operating system decide. It can do a far better job of deciding what's optimal than you can.
There are a number of questions on a similar theme - search for "optimal number threads" (without the quotes) gives you a couple of pages of results.

I would say it also depends on what you are doing, if your making a server application then using all you can out of the CPU`s via either Environment.ProcessorCount or a thread pool is a good idea.
But if this is running on a desktop or a machine that not dedicated to this task, you might want to leave some CPU idle so the machine "functions" for the user.

It can be argued that the real way to pick the best number of threads is for the application to profile itself and adaptively change its threading behavior based on what gives the best performance.

I wrote a simple number crunching app that used multiple threads, and found that on my Quad-core system, it completed the most work in a fixed period using 6 threads.
I think the only real way to determine is through trialling or profiling.

In addition to processor count, you may want to take into account the process's processor affinity by counting bits in the affinity mask returned by the GetProcessAffinityMask function.

If there is no excessive i/o processing or system calls when the threads are running, then the number of thread (except the main thread) is in general equal to the number of processors/cores in your system, otherwise you can try to increase the number of threads by testing.

Alternative to Threads

I've read that threads are very problematic. What alternatives are available? Something that handles blocking and stuff automatically?
A lot of people recommend the background worker, but I've no idea why.
Anyone care to explain "easy" alternatives? The user will be able to select the number of threads to use (depending on their speed needs and computer power).
Any ideas?

To summarize the problems with threads:
if threads share memory, you can get
race conditions
if you avoid races by liberally using locks, you
can get deadlocks (see the dining philosophers problem)
An example of a race: suppose two threads share access to some memory where a number is stored. Thread 1 reads from the memory address and stores it in a CPU register. Thread 2 does the same. Now thread 1 increments the number and writes it back to memory. Thread 2 then does the same. End result: the number was only incremented by 1, while both threads tried to increment it. The outcome of such interactions depend on timing. Worse, your code may seem to work bug-free but once in a blue moon the timing is wrong and bad things happen.
To avoid these problems, the answer is simple: avoid sharing writable memory. Instead, use message passing to communicate between threads. An extreme example is to put the threads in separate processes and communicate via TCP/IP connections or named pipes.
Another approach is to share only read-only data structures, which is why functional programming languages can work so well with multiple threads.

This is a bit higher-level answer, but it may be useful if you want to consider other alternatives to threads. Anyway, most of the answers discussed solutions based on threads (or thread pools) or maybe tasks from .NET 4.0, but there is one more alternative, which is called message-passing. This has been successfuly used in Erlang (a functional language used by Ericsson). Since functional programming is becoming more mainstream in these days (e.g. F#), I thought I could mention it. In genral:
Threads (or thread pools) can usually used when you have some relatively long-running computation. When it needs to share state with other threads, it gets tricky (you have to correctly use locks or other synchronization primitives).
Tasks (available in TPL in .NET 4.0) are very lightweight - you can split your program into thousands of tasks and then let the runtime run them (it will use optimal number of threads). If you can write your algorithm using tasks instead of threads, it sounds like a good idea - you can avoid some synchronization when you run computation using smaller steps.
Declarative approaches (PLINQ in .NET 4.0 is a great option) if you have some higher-level data processing operation that can be encoded using LINQ primitives, then you can use this technique. The runtime will automatically parallelize your code, because LINQ doesn't specify how exactly should it evaluate the results (you just say what results you want to get).
Message-passing allows you two write program as concurrently running processes that perform some (relatively simple) tasks and communicate by sending messages to each other. This is great, because you can share some state (send messages) without the usual synchronization issues (you just send a message, then do other thing or wait for messages). Here is a good introduction to message-passing in F# from Robert Pickering.
Note that the last three techniques are quite related to functional programming - in functional programming, you desing programs differently - as computations that return result (which makes it easier to use Tasks). You also often write declarative and higher-level code (which makes it easier to use Declarative approaches).
When it comes to actual implementation, F# has a wonderful message-passing library right in the core libraries. In C#, you can use Concurrency & Coordination Runtime, which feels a bit "hacky", but is probably quite powerful too (but may look too complicated).

Won't the parallel programming options in .Net 4 be an "easy" way to use threads? I'm not sure what I'd suggest for .Net 3.5 and earlier...
This MSDN link to the Parallel Computing Developer Center has links to lots of info on Parellel Programming including links to videos, etc.

I can recommend this project. Smart Thread Pool
Project Description
Smart Thread Pool is a thread pool written in C#. It is far more advanced than the .NET built-in thread pool.
Here is a list of the thread pool features:
The number of threads dynamically changes according to the workload on the threads in the pool.
Work items can return a value.
A work item can be cancelled.
The caller thread's context is used when the work item is executed (limited).
Usage of minimum number of Win32 event handles, so the handle count of the application won't explode.
The caller can wait for multiple or all the work items to complete.
Work item can have a PostExecute callback, which is called as soon the work item is completed.
The state object, that accompanies the work item, can be disposed automatically.
Work item exceptions are sent back to the caller.
Work items have priority.
Work items group.
The caller can suspend the start of a thread pool and work items group.
Threads have priority.
Can run COM objects that have single threaded apartment.
Support Action and Func delegates.
Support for WindowsCE (limited)
The MaxThreads and MinThreads can be changed at run time.
Cancel behavior is imporved.

"Problematic" is not the word I would use to describe working with threads. "Tedious" is a more appropriate description.
If you are new to threaded programming, I would suggest reading this thread as a starting point. It is by no means exhaustive but has some good introductory information. From there, I would continue to scour this website and other programming sites for information related to specific threading questions you may have.
As for specific threading options in C#, here's some suggestions on when to use each one.
Use BackgroundWorker if you have a single task that runs in the background and needs to interact with the UI. The task of marshalling data and method calls to the UI thread are handled automatically through its event-based model. Avoid BackgroundWorker if (1) your assembly does not already reference the System.Windows.Form assembly, (2) you need the thread to be a foreground thread, or (3) you need to manipulate the thread priority.
Use a ThreadPool thread when efficiency is desired. The ThreadPool helps avoid the overhead associated with creating, starting, and stopping threads. Avoid using the ThreadPool if (1) the task runs for the lifetime of your application, (2) you need the thread to be a foreground thread, (3) you need to manipulate the thread priority, or (4) you need the thread to have a fixed identity (aborting, suspending, discovering).
Use the Thread class for long-running tasks and when you require features offered by a formal threading model, e.g., choosing between foreground and background threads, tweaking the thread priority, fine-grained control over thread execution, etc.

Any time you introduce multiple threads, each running at once, you open up the potential for race conditions. To avoid these, you tend to need to add synchronization, which adds complexity, as well as the potential for deadlocks.
Many tools make this easier. .NET has quite a few classes specifically meant to ease the pain of dealing with multiple threads, including the BackgroundWorker class, which makes running background work and interacting with a user interface much simpler.
.NET 4 is going to do a lot to ease this even more. The Task Parallel Library and PLINQ dramatically ease working with multiple threads.
As for your last comment:
The user will be able to select the number of threads to use (depending on their speed needs and computer power).
Most of the routines in .NET are built upon the ThreadPool. In .NET 4, when using the TPL, the work load will actually scale at runtime, for you, eliminating the burden of having to specify the number of threads to use. However, there are ways to do this now.
Currently, you can use ThreadPool.SetMaxThreads to help limit the number of threads generated. In TPL, you can specify ParallelOptions.MaxDegreesOfParallelism, and pass an instance of the ParallelOptions into your routine to control this. The default behavior scales up with more threads as you add more processing cores, which is usually the best behavior in any case.

Threads are not problematic if you understand what causes problems with them.
For ex. if you avoid statics, you know which API's to use (e.g. use synchronized streams), you will avoid many of the issues that come up for their bad utilization.

If threading is a problem (this can happen if you have unsafe/unmanaged 3rd party dll's that cannot support multithreading. In this can an option is to create a meachism to queue the operations. ie store the parameters of the action to a database and just run through them one at a time. This can be done in a windows service. Obviously this will take longer but in some cases is the only option.

Threads are indispensable tools for solving many problems, and it behooves the maturing developer to know how to effectively use them. But like many tools, they can cause some very difficult-to-find bugs.
Don't shy away from some so useful just because it can cause problems, instead study and practice until you become the go-to guy for multi-threaded apps.
A great place to start is Joe Albahari's article: http://www.albahari.com/threading/.

When should I not use the ThreadPool in .Net? [closed]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
When should I not use the ThreadPool in .Net?
It looks like the best option is to use a ThreadPool, in which case, why is it not the only option?
What are your experiences around this?

#Eric, I'm going to have to agree with Dean. Threads are expensive. You can't assume that your program is the only one running. When everyone is greedy with resources, the problem multiplies.
I prefer to create my threads manually and control them myself. It keeps the code very easy to understand.
That's fine when it's appropriate. If you need a bunch of worker threads, though, all you've done is make your code more complicated. Now you have to write code to manage them. If you just used a thread pool, you'd get all the thread management for free. And the thread pool provided by the language is very likely to be more robust, more efficient, and less buggy than whatever you roll for yourself.
Thread t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(DoSomething));
t.Start();
t.Join();
I hope that you would normally have some additional code in between Start() and Join(). Otherwise, the extra thread is useless, and you're wasting resources for no reason.
People are way too afraid of the resources used by threads. I've never seen creating and starting a thread to take more than a millisecond. There is no hard limit on the number of threads you can create. RAM usage is minimal. Once you have a few hundred threads, CPU becomes an issue because of context switches, so at that point you might want to get fancy with your design.
A millisecond is a long time on modern hardware. That's 3 million cycles on a 3GHz machine. And again, you aren't the only one creating threads. Your threads compete for the CPU along with every other program's threads. If you use not-quite-too-many threads, and so does another program, then together you've used too many threads.
Seriously, don't make life more complex than it needs to be. Don't use the thread pool unless you need something very specific that it offers.
Indeed. Don't make life more complex. If your program needs multiple worker threads, don't reinvent the wheel. Use the thread pool. That's why it's there. Would you roll your own string class?

The only reason why I wouldn't use the ThreadPool for cheap multithreading is if I need to…
interract with the method running (e.g., to kill it)
run code on a STA thread (this happened to me)
keep the thread alive after my application has died (ThreadPool threads are background threads)
in case I need to change the priority of the Thread. We can not change priority of threads in ThreadPool which is by default Normal.
P.S.: The MSDN article "The Managed Thread Pool" contains a section titled, "When Not to Use Thread Pool Threads", with a very similar but slightly more complete list of possible reasons for not using the thread pool.
There are lots of reasons why you would need to skip the ThreadPool, but if you don't know them then the ThreadPool should be good enough for you.
Alternatively, look at the new Parallel Extensions Framework, which has some neat stuff in there that may suit your needs without having to use the ThreadPool.

To quarrelsome's answer, I would add that it's best not to use a ThreadPool thread if you need to guarantee that your thread will begin work immediately. The maximum number of running thread-pooled threads is limited per appdomain, so your piece of work may have to wait if they're all busy. It's called "queue user work item", after all.
Two caveats, of course:
You can change the maximum number of thread-pooled threads in code, at runtime, so there's nothing to stop you checking the current vs maximum number and upping the maximum if required.
Spinning up a new thread comes with its own time penalty - whether it's worthwhile for you to take the hit depends on your circumstances.

Thread pools make sense whenever you have the concept of worker threads. Any time you can easily partition processing into smaller jobs, each of which can be processed independently, worker threads (and therefore a thread pool) make sense.
Thread pools do not make sense when you need thread which perform entirely dissimilar and unrelated actions, which cannot be considered "jobs"; e.g., One thread for GUI event handling, another for backend processing. Thread pools also don't make sense when processing forms a pipeline.
Basically, if you have threads which start, process a job, and quit, a thread pool is probably the way to go. Otherwise, the thread pool isn't really going to help.

I'm not speaking as someone with only
theoretical knowledge here. I write
and maintain high volume applications
that make heavy use of multithreading,
and I generally don't find the thread
pool to be the correct answer.
Ah, argument from authority - but always be on the look out for people who might be on the Windows kernel team.
Neither of us were arguing with the fact that if you have some specific requirements then the .NET ThreadPool might not be the right thing. What we're objecting to is the trivialisation of the costs to the machine of creating a thread.
The significant expense of creating a thread at the raison d'etre for the ThreadPool in the first place. I don't want my machines to be filled with code written by people who have been misinformed about the expense of creating a thread, and don't, for example, know that it causes a method to be called in every single DLL which is attached to the process (some of which will be created by 3rd parties), and which may well hot-up a load of code which need not be in RAM at all and almost certainly didn't need to be in L1.
The shape of the memory hierarchy in a modern machine means that 'distracting' a CPU is about the worst thing you can possibly do, and everybody who cares about their craft should work hard to avoid it.

When you're going to perform an operation that is going to take a long time, or perhaps a continuous background thread.
I guess you could always push the amount of threads available in the pool up but there would be little point in incurring the management costs of a thread that is never going to be given back to the pool.

Threadpool threads are appropriate for tasks that meet both of the following criteria:
The task will not have to spend any significant time waiting for something to happen
Anything that's waiting for the task to finish will likely be waiting for many tasks to finish, so its scheduling priority isn't apt to affect things much.
Using a threadpool thread instead of creating a new one will save a significant but bounded amount of time. If that time is significant compared with the time it will take to perform a task, a threadpool task is likely appropriate. The longer the time required to perform a task, however, the smaller the benefit of using the threadpool and the greater the likelihood of the task impeding threadpool efficiency.

MSDN has a list some reasons here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/0ka9477y.aspx
There are several scenarios in which it is appropriate to create and
manage your own threads instead of using thread pool threads:
You require a foreground thread.
You require a thread to have a particular priority.
You have tasks that cause the thread to block for long periods of time. The thread pool has a maximum number of threads, so a large
number of blocked thread pool threads might prevent tasks from
starting.
You need to place threads into a single-threaded apartment. All ThreadPool threads are in the multithreaded apartment.
You need to have a stable identity associated with the thread, or to dedicate a thread to a task.

#Eric
#Derek, I don't exactly agree with the scenario you use as an example. If you don't know exactly what's running on your machine and exactly how many total threads, handles, CPU time, RAM, etc, that your app will use under a certain amount of load, you are in trouble.
Are you the only target customer for the programs you write? If not, you can't be certain about most of that. You generally have no idea when you write a program whether it will execute effectively solo, or if it will run on a webserver being hammered by a DDOS attack. You can't know how much CPU time you are going to have.
Assuming your program's behavior changes based on input, it's rare to even know exactly how much memory or CPU time your program will consume. Sure, you should have a pretty good idea about how your program is going to behave, but most programs are never analyzed to determine exactly how much memory, how many handles, etc. will be used, because a full analysis is expensive. If you aren't writing real-time software, the payoff isn't worth the effort.
In general, claiming to know exactly how your program will behave is far-fetched, and claiming to know everything about the machine approaches ludicrous.
And to be honest, if you don't know exactly what method you should use: manual threads, thread pool, delegates, and how to implement it to do just what your application needs, you are in trouble.
I don't fully disagree, but I don't really see how that's relevant. This site is here specifically because programmers don't always have all the answers.
If your application is complex enough to require throttling the number of threads that you use, aren't you almost always going to want more control than what the framework gives you?
No. If I need a thread pool, I will use the one that's provided, unless and until I find that it is not sufficient. I will not simply assume that the provided thread pool is insufficient for my needs without confirming that to be the case.
I'm not speaking as someone with only theoretical knowledge here. I write and maintain high volume applications that make heavy use of multithreading, and I generally don't find the thread pool to be the correct answer.
Most of my professional experience has been with multithreading and multiprocessing programs. I have often needed to roll my own solution as well. That doesn't mean that the thread pool isn't useful, or appropriate in many cases. The thread pool is built to handle worker threads. In cases where multiple worker threads are appropriate, the provided thread pool should should generally be the first approach.