Hi, Alexander. First of all, test shows that _YAT_ approach works faster: THREAD-VERSION : Time taken for tests: 4.688475 seconds WITHOUT THREADS: Time taken for tests: 243.150797 seconds But, to be honest, I don't beleive in it. The only choice for it: patch occasionaly remove some bug or perfomance bottleneck from sources.
And can you explain about expected perfomance degradation in YAT aproach. Do you mean thread's swithing once at 20 seconds? I don't think so. IMHO kernel switches between threads _realy_ fast, because threads share the same address space, stack, code, etc.
I remember the time when kannel created new thread for every outgoing http request. And even this worked pretty fast.
Alexander Malysh wrote:
hey, factor 50???? I want see a patch w/o YAT!!!
It can't be soooo bad...
On Thursday 27 November 2003 17:24, David Schmitz wrote:
Hi,
your YAT-hatred ;) is well known and understood. See the attachment for some naive benchmarks. Please draw your own conclusions.
Regards, David
Alexander Malysh schrieb:
Hi David/Slava,
as you know, I do not like "yet another thread" (YAT) approach... Would you please try get some benchmark results w/ and w/o YAT, so we can see how is performance w/o YAT affected?
Thanks in advance...
On Thursday 27 November 2003 15:02, David Schmitz wrote:
Hi list,
attached is the IMHO final version of the timeout-patch. I took the thread-approach as discussed with Slava (thanks for your input and help
:)). If there are no objections/corrections I would like to commit the
patch.
Note: configuration of the timeout-values is done in http.h.
Best regards, David
-- Vjacheslav Chekushin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latvian Mobile Phone Company http://www.lmt.lv
