From owner-freebsd-net Wed Jul 7 20:46:26 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from cs.rice.edu (cs.rice.edu [128.42.1.30]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F5A814CA1 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 20:46:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from aron@cs.rice.edu) Received: (from aron@localhost) by cs.rice.edu (8.9.0/8.9.0) id WAA27087; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 22:46:19 -0500 (CDT) From: Mohit Aron Message-Id: <199907080346.WAA27087@cs.rice.edu> Subject: Re: paper on improving webserver performance To: jlemon@americantv.com (Jonathan Lemon) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 22:46:19 -0500 (CDT) Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199907080340.WAA29430@free.pcs> from "Jonathan Lemon" at Jul 7, 99 10:40:30 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > This seems to indicate that you still have the overhead where the timer > fires, but no events are actually pending. True, but it avoids any pointer manipulations when timers are set and cancelled by TCP (which happens much more). Only if a timer is set by TCP that needs to fire earlier than the time that the timing wheel event handler needs to fire would you need to move around the timing wheel event. In any case, I'm very interested in your implementation since you appear to have seen faster performance results with it. - Mohit To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message