From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Nov 11 12:15:19 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA07161 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 12:15:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA07156 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 12:15:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id NAA18571; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:03:02 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199611112003.NAA18571@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: semaphores/shared memory To: jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com (Joe Greco) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:03:01 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, scrappy@ki.net, twpierce@bio-3.bsd.uchicago.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199611111905.NAA19699@brasil.moneng.mei.com> from "Joe Greco" at Nov 11, 96 01:05:53 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > However, now I have to question my assumptions... why is it necessary > > for the clients to signal the server? > > Reuse of the buffer area? > > It would be stupid for the server to start writing new data before > everyone else is done with it. If 99/100 of the clients succeed, we should hang the other 99 for the one that is lagging out? It would be useful to know if the data stream can be resynchronized, and what the actual effect of data loss for one client would be. Also, the effect would be negligible if you double-buffered the client buffer area. If the discrete buffer areas were large enough that the buffer could contain all the data sent in the maximum pool retention time window, then it would not be a problem. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.