From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Feb 15 19:13:39 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by builder.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8935145F6 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 19:06:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id RAA46880; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:34:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:34:09 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200002160134.RAA46880@apollo.backplane.com> To: Joe Greco Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Filesystem size limit? References: <200002160122.TAA93538@aurora.sol.net> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG : :> And, of course, the reader uses a multi-fork/multi-thread design, :> resulting in an extremely optimal footprint. : :I hate your threads. Still trying to see some parts of the bigger :picture. But it was a reasonable design decision, I'll grant. heh heh. Be happy, it's second generation -- the first generation was what I did in BestWWWD which was nearly impossible to follow. The procedure-state-based model that dreaderd uses is actually reasonably close to what you would have to use in a threading model anyway, the only difference being that the subroutines would not have to do non-blocking-returns-to-the-main-select-loop. Remember, I did this before we had a working RFMEM rfork() *OR* a reliable aio subsystem. These days I would simply use the linux threads library under FreeBSD (at least until we get our new threads library working) and take the 'thousands of processes' hit (which is ok by me since the page table is shared). -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message