Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 01:26:20 -0500 (EST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@ki.net> To: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, twpierce@bio-3.bsd.uchicago.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: semaphores/shared memory Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.95.961112012447.8385A-100000@quagmire.ki.net> In-Reply-To: <199611111905.NAA19699@brasil.moneng.mei.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Joe Greco wrote: > > > Okay, now bearing in mind that I'm looking at the examples as > > > presented in "Unix Network Programming" by W. Richard Stevens...how > > > do n clients signal back to the server that its finished with the data > > > and can send up the next set of data? > > > > This is why I didn't suggest the same soloution. > > > > 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. > > *shrug* > Ya, but this could be gotten around if we create several buffers that get written to sequentially...then the server can make the assumption (in my case, the assumption would be safe) that by the time the server got back to writing to area 1, the clients aren't much behind it... Marc G. Fournier scrappy@ki.net Systems Administrator @ ki.net scrappy@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.95.961112012447.8385A-100000>