Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 16:33:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Ben Black <black@zen.cypher.net> To: Christopher Sedore <cmsedore@mailbox.syr.edu> Cc: Ruslan Shevchenko <rssh@cki.ipri.kiev.ua>, FreeBSD-Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: async socket stuff Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970527162845.1463E-100000@zen.cypher.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970527144252.2510A-100000@rodan.syr.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Well, you might better arrange to be amazed :) It is an NT system call. > It's exact purpose is to avoid a read(file,buf)/write(sock,buf) loop with > the associated user/system switch for each call. Async doesn't buy you > anything here except the ability to do it in the background. > how do you spell kludge? > > btw, NT is probably the WORST place to look for inspiration. just look > > at their TCP sequence generation algorithm. > > I figure that I'll borrow good ideas from where ever they come...Nobody > does everything "right" by universal or any given individual's standards. > no, but some places have more wrong than others. > I'd just like to see FreeBSD add some enhancements to make it easier/more > efficient for high load network applications (since I'm now breaking NT's something like fbufs would be a general purpose and cleaner solution to the issue of high-speed IO. the NT syscall you describe is nothing but a giant hairy hack. > IP stack under load). Threads (true threads, mind you) would be nice, breaking the NT tcp stack is no major accomplishment. > but kernel based async IO and a few other goodies would make a big > difference. > again, the kernel need not provide these facilities as long as they appear at user level (yes, this can be done, see www.cis.upenn.edu/~eros) i would rather the kernel got *smaller* and *faster* than more loaded down with features. how about a giant rearchitecting for FreeBSD 4.0? ;) b3n
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.3.91.970527162845.1463E-100000>