lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC,PATCH] use rcu for fasync_lock
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Ingo Oeser wrote:

> On Sunday 04 January 2004 20:20, you wrote:
> > The problem with poll/select is not the Linux implementation. It is the
> > API that is flawed when applied to large fd sets. Every call pass to the
> > system the whole fd set, and this makes the API O(N) by definition. While
> > poll/select are perfectly ok for small fd sets, epoll LT might enable the
> > application to migrate from poll/select to epoll pretty quickly (if the
> > application architecture is fairly sane). For example, it took about 15
> > minutes to me to make an epoll'd thttpd.
>
> Yes, I've read your analysis several years ago already and I'm the first
> one lobbying for epoll, but look at the posting stating, that INN sucks
> under Linux currently, but doesn't suck that hard under FreeBSD and
> Solaris.
>
> There are already enough things you cannot do properly under Linux
> (which are mostly not Linux' fault, but still), so I don't want to add
> another one. Especially in the server market, where the M$ lobbyists are
> growing their market share.
>
>
> But if there is some minimal funding available (50 EUR?), I would do it
> myself and push the patches upstream ;-)

IIRC INN was not using multiplexing multiple client with a single task.
Wasn't it a fork-and-handle kinda server?



- Davide


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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.078 / U:1.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site