Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:48:49 -0800 From: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu> To: Maxim Konovalov <maxim@macomnet.ru> Cc: delphij@freebsd.org, Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH FOR REVIEW] kqueue'ify inetd(8) and several other cleanups Message-ID: <20051110204849.GC775@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <20051110172650.Q48388@mp2.macomnet.net> References: <a78074950511091943v5cc5c701p5b977630c84d35a8@mail.gmail.com> <20051110172650.Q48388@mp2.macomnet.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Maxim Konovalov wrote this message on Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 17:27 +0300: > On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, 11:43+0800, Xin LI wrote: > > > Dear folks, > > > > Here is a patchset that taught inetd(8) about kqueue, and some other > > cleanups that raises WARNS level from 2 to 3, etc. > > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~delphij/for_review/patch-inetd-kqueue > > > > The kqueue part was a continuation of jmg@'s patchset. > > Can I ask: why? Or to ask a different question, why continue to use select? When I originally did the patch for inetd, I was VERY surprised at how little of the logic I had to change to make it use kqueue... Part of the reason I never committed it was that I did most of my work on 3.x at the time, and I had serious tcp connection rate issues with 4.x (-current) at the time, and people wanted benchmarks, but w/ 4.x, I couldn't get more than a hundred connections per second, while my 3.x box could do thousands... -- John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051110204849.GC775>