Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 16:21:21 +0800 From: "ªL^¶W" <r88074@csie.ntu.edu.tw> To: "Freebsd-Hackers" <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: write() vs aio_write() Message-ID: <200105010822.QAA17927@cslab.csie.ntu.edu.tw> In-Reply-To: <20010430173555.H18676@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----Original Message----- From: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG [mailto:owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of 'Alfred Perlstein' Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 8:36 AM To: Charles Randall Cc: ªL^¶W; Freebsd-Hackers Subject: Re: write() vs aio_write() * Charles Randall <crandall@matchlogic.com> [010430 10:26] wrote: > Regarding aio_*, Alfred Perlstein writes: > >It's a good idea to use it for disk IO, probably not a good > >idea for network IO. > > Could you elaborate? Sure. Network IO can be done without blocking (unless you take a fault on the source address of your data). Hence the additional context switching required by aio is not needed. Disk IO probably stands a good chance of blocking your application, if you can offload that blocking to a kernel thread you should be able to continue serving content. By the way..... I think synchonous I/O include blocking and non-blocking I/O and asynchonous I/O is non-blocking I/O, but it is signal-driven......... Am I right ???? -- -Alfred Perlstein - [alfred@freebsd.org] Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200105010822.QAA17927>