From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Mar 29 12:58: 2 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DE7E37B725 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:57:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nate@yogotech.com) Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.123.131]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA09143; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:57:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA13718; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:57:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate) From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15043.41428.813769.449349@nomad.yogotech.com> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:57:56 -0700 (MST) To: Brian Matthews Cc: "'nate@yogotech.com'" , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: Threads vs. blocking sockets In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > | > Linux doesn't, and I don't think Solaris does (we just > | moved so I can't try > | > it now, but when I was investigating the problem I'm pretty > | sure I tried it > | > on our Sun box). > | Are you using non-blocking sockets, and are you using a user-space > | library on those OS's? (I suspect not, because when I last > | used Solaris it acted that way). > > In all my tests I was using blocking (at least from the application's > point-of-view) sockets. On Linux I used the standard pthreads library, which > is kernel-based, although the implementation of the threading library > should, hopefully, be irrelevant. It's certainly not irrelevant. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message