Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 14:25:29 -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.3.91.970527142319.1463A-100000@zen.cypher.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970527132125.11245A-100000@gamera.syr.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > It sure could, but you end up with many more system calls, and it is not > async. The real advantage to a call like TransmitFile() is that you can > send an entire file (or a range of a file) with a single system call, and > you can do it async. This means that you can more efficiently implement > things like FTP servers, Web servers, pop servers, etc. > i think we have a terminology problem here. i would honestly be amazed if NT implemented TransmitFile() in the kernel (making it a syscall). i think it more likely that it is a library routine that is built on top of async IO. btw, NT is probably the WORST place to look for inspiration. just look at their TCP sequence generation algorithm. b3n
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.3.91.970527142319.1463A-100000>