Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:03:01 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com (Joe Greco) Cc: terry@lambert.org, scrappy@ki.net, twpierce@bio-3.bsd.uchicago.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: semaphores/shared memory Message-ID: <199611112003.NAA18571@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199611111905.NAA19699@brasil.moneng.mei.com> from "Joe Greco" at Nov 11, 96 01:05:53 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > However, now I have to question my assumptions... why is it necessary > > for the clients to signal the server? > > Reuse of the buffer area? > > It would be stupid for the server to start writing new data before > everyone else is done with it. If 99/100 of the clients succeed, we should hang the other 99 for the one that is lagging out? It would be useful to know if the data stream can be resynchronized, and what the actual effect of data loss for one client would be. Also, the effect would be negligible if you double-buffered the client buffer area. If the discrete buffer areas were large enough that the buffer could contain all the data sent in the maximum pool retention time window, then it would not be a problem. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611112003.NAA18571>