Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:52:58 -0500 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: herveyw@dynamic-cast.com (Hervey Wilson), markgiglio@yahoo.com (Mark Giglio), chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: hotmail converted from freeBSD Message-ID: <15081.63562.908112.407519@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <200104271749.KAA01700@usr07.primenet.com> References: <15080.47377.734245.834332@guru.mired.org> <200104271749.KAA01700@usr07.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> types: > > > The reasoning behind I/O completion ports is that it permits > > > you to do something on completion of I/O, such as initiate yet > > > another I/O (a "feedme" signal that is delivered reliably as an > > > event, unlike a UNIX signal, which is merely a persistant > > > condition). > > > > The author of the paper I referenced mentions that, but goes on to > > state that what IO completions ports provide that some other Windows > > facility doesn't is the ability to control how many threads are > > actively dealing with the results of IO going through that port. > The author is naieve, or is simplifying the situation intentionally. Since he's discussing writing scalable network servers for NT 3.5, I'd say the latter. > Are you in the Bay Area? I have full Microsoft documentation of > the "VIPER" framework, which I could show you, but could not let > you copy. No. That - like LA - is a place I've escaped from. > So this "advantage" doesn't wash: I can get the same thing without > completion ports by controlling my instancing and thread creation > ordering, and simply knowing what the hell I am doing, instead of > groping blindly based on assumption, rather than knowledge, of how > things actually work. That was pretty much what I had assumed, and appreciate you verifying my assumption. > [ ... where to go to learn more about Windows ... ] > > > While I appreciate the suggestion, I'm not going to follow up on > > it. If I ever find myself in a situation where the only income I can > > get programming involves working with Windows, I'll start selling used > > cars for a living. > Not to be unkind, but I think that the reference book on Windows > and threads that you have been quoting is probably no good. If > nothing else, you should probably not trust it enough to influence > your posts on public mailing lists. Experience is a better teacher, > second only to the horse's mouth. It's not a book, it's a paper from MicroSoft on writing servers for NT. I don't trust it - some of the assumptions didn't mesh with my experience writing multithreaded servers on other platforms. That's why I asked about it on -chat - I wanted to know if MS's documentation was up the level of their software. I appreciate your verification that the authors assumptions were indeed bogus. The white paper that MS published on migrating Hotmail from FreeBSD to W2K makes these same assumptions, which is where this thread started. Since we're discussing proper behavior on public mailing lists, I'd suggest you read documents before critizing them publicly. The thing about the horses mouth, you know. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15081.63562.908112.407519>