From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Dec 19 17:43:40 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from ns.mt.sri.com (ns.mt.sri.com [206.127.79.91]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A3114C1A for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 17:43:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nate@mt.sri.com) Received: from mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by ns.mt.sri.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA15271; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 18:43:38 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@rocky.mt.sri.com) Received: by mt.sri.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA05670; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 18:43:37 -0700 Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 18:43:37 -0700 Message-Id: <199912200143.SAA05670@mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Practical limit for number of TCP connections? In-Reply-To: <43945.945560638@monkeys.com> References: <43945.945560638@monkeys.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > >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. Even something as lightweight as a thread is still too heavy for large systems. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message