From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Apr 30 11:11:12 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from silby.com (adam042-060.resnet.wisc.edu [146.151.42.60]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0795A37B424 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:11:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: (qmail 20571 invoked by uid 1000); 30 Apr 2001 18:11:03 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Apr 2001 18:11:03 -0000 Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:11:03 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack To: Charles Randall Cc: 'Alfred Perlstein' , =?iso-8859-1?Q?=AAL=AD=5E?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?=B6W?= , Freebsd-Hackers Subject: RE: write() vs aio_write() In-Reply-To: <5FE9B713CCCDD311A03400508B8B30130828EC88@bdr-xcln.corp.matchlogic.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Charles Randall wrote: > Regarding aio_*, Alfred Perlstein writes: > >It's a good idea to use it for disk IO, probably not a good > >idea for network IO. > > Could you elaborate? > > -Charles Sockets already support non-blocking IO, and have for a long while. Hence, the socket code is probably more optimized for non-blocking operation than AIO operation. As a plus, using non-blocking socket operations will allow your code to run on any platform; aio isn't as portable. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message