From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue May 27 11:26:34 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA26976
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 27 May 1997 11:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cypher.net (black@zen.pratt.edu [205.232.115.155])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA26968
          for <FreeBSD-Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 27 May 1997 11:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from black@localhost) by cypher.net (8.8.5/8.7.1) id OAA02571; Tue, 27 May 1997 14:25:29 -0400
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 14:25:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ben Black <black@zen.cypher.net>
To: Christopher Sedore <cmsedore@mailbox.syr.edu>
cc: Ruslan Shevchenko <rssh@cki.ipri.kiev.ua>, FreeBSD-Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: async socket stuff
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970527132125.11245A-100000@gamera.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970527142319.1463A-100000@zen.cypher.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> It sure could, but you end up with many more system calls, and it is not
> async.  The real advantage to a call like TransmitFile() is that you can
> send an entire file (or a range of a file) with a single system call, and
> you can do it async.  This means that you can more efficiently implement
> things like FTP servers, Web servers, pop servers, etc.
> 

i think we have a terminology problem here.  i would honestly be amazed 
if NT implemented TransmitFile() in the kernel (making it a syscall).  i 
think it more likely that it is a library routine that is built on top of 
async IO.

btw, NT is probably the WORST place to look for inspiration.  just look 
at their TCP sequence generation algorithm.


b3n