From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Dec 18 15:44: 1 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AFC514BE2 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 15:43:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rfg@monkeys.com) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA43947 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 15:43:58 -0800 (PST) To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Practical limit for number of TCP connections? In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 18 Dec 1999 15:28:33 -0800. Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 15:43:58 -0800 Message-ID: <43945.945560638@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message , Alfred Perlstein wrote: >On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, Kevin Day wrote: > >> > The _clean_ way of doing it would be to write your multi-user server using >> > threads, and to assign one thread to each connection. If you can do that, >> > then the logic in the program becomes quite simple. Each thread just sits >> > there, blocked on a call to read(), until something comes in, and then it >> > just parses the command, does whatever it is supposed to do in response to >> > that command, and then goes back to the read() again. >> > >> > But as I understand it, there is not yet sufficient threads support in the >> > FreeBSD kernel to make this work well/properly. (I may perhaps be misinfo >rmed >> > about that, but that's what I have been told anyway.) >> >> I believe this is how ConferenceRoom works, so it seems ok, but I remember >> the comments that FreeBSD was their least preferred platform because of >> thread problems. > >Using a thread per connection has always been a bogus way of programming, >it's easy, but it doesn't work very well. OK, even if nobody else does, I'll bite. Why not? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message