From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Sep 25 3:11:14 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5421B37B401 for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 03:11:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from salmon.maths.tcd.ie (salmon.maths.tcd.ie [134.226.81.11]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2433943E65 for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 03:11:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie) Received: from walton.maths.tcd.ie by salmon.maths.tcd.ie with SMTP id ; 25 Sep 2002 11:11:11 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:11:09 +0100 From: David Malone To: Michel Oosterhof Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kqueue Message-ID: <20020925101109.GA46927@walton.maths.tcd.ie> References: <20020925081253.GA98975@xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020925081253.GA98975@xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 10:12:53AM +0200, Michel Oosterhof wrote: > I've got one more question, actually a fact that surprises me, it > seems that tail(1) is the only place in the base system that actually > uses kqueue. It is also used in libc for the DNS resolver. > Is there a reason for this? I read in most places > kqueue() is more efficient, scalable, etc. Probably lack of time to convert more programs. I suspect that inetd or syslogd might benefit from kqueueing, but I guess the real gains would be in applications like apache. David. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message