From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Dec 21 7:22:10 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from sumatra.americantv.com (sumatra.americantv.com [208.139.222.227]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D7CB14F8E for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 07:22:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jlemon@americantv.com) Received: from right.PCS (right.PCS [148.105.10.31]) by sumatra.americantv.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA22484; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:22:06 -0600 (CST) Received: from free.pcs (free.PCS [148.105.10.51]) by right.PCS (8.8.5/8.6.4) with ESMTP id JAA28477; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:22:05 -0600 (CST) Received: (from jlemon@localhost) by free.pcs (8.8.6/8.8.5) id JAA04702; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:22:04 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:22:04 -0600 (CST) From: Jonathan Lemon Message-Id: <199912211522.JAA04702@free.pcs> To: cmsedore@maxwell.syr.edu, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Practical limit for number of TCP connections? X-Newsgroups: local.mail.freebsd-hackers In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Architecture and Operating System Fanatics Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In article you write: >In my case, load is reasonably distributed. Is poll() really that much >better than select()? I thought that, excepting bit flag manipulations, >it worked basically the same way on the kernel end. Yes, it is better. Select uses the same backend as poll(), but those "bit flag manipulations" that you are talking about consume a measurable amount of CPU time when you start throwing thousands of descriptors at it. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message