Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 23:17:58 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Jan Mikkelsen <janm@transactionware.com> Cc: Freebsd-Hackers <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: write() vs aio_write() Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.31.0104302315030.21204-100000@achilles.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <00bd01c0d1d1$106ccdf0$0901a8c0@haym.transactionsite.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Jan Mikkelsen wrote: > Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> wrote: > [ On using aio on disks vs. sockets ] > >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. > > I recall reading about possible zero copy I/O using the aio interface. Is > anyone thinking about this? And on a related note, how about something like > IRIX's O_DIRECT mode for files? > > I'm sure there are lots of issues, but I'm curious. > > Jan Mikkelsen I think the zero-copy patch for FreeBSD sets the page of the written COW and can thereby work with the standard write call. (Assuming that you don't re-write the page soon after doing the write.) Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.31.0104302315030.21204-100000>