lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Mark Russinovich's reponse Was: [OT] Comments to WinNT Mag !! (fwd)
Date


>> Sure asynchronous I/O can be added to the rest of the I/O architecture
>
>no. I personally think that networking is about the only place where this
>technique has a long term future ... do you suggest that any 'enterprise
>server' is IO-bound on block devices? But yes, it can be added. (squid for
>one could benefit from it, but even squid is typically memory or disk seek
>time limited)

NT's asynchronous I/O is very useful when dealing with external hardware
and something approaching real time. I would be most happy if Linux were
to support asynchronous I/O and a system call like NT's WaitForMultipleObjects().
For those who have not done this sort of thing on NT, WaitForMultipleObjects
is like an enhanced select() which can accept files, semaphores, mutexes, the whole
range of things that a program might want to wait for and wakes the program
up as soon as one of these is ready. It allows me to write simple code which
deals efficiently with a long lists of asynchronous events.

While working on device control I am glad to have NT for this capability.

Once the software works and I want to deploy it I wish I had Linux which
is worlds easier to manage, especially remote over a network connection.

Does anyone else working with Linux wish for this?


Mark Christiansen


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site