>
> The solution that I took with BestWWWD was to have just one process
> accept all the connections and then have it dole the descriptor out to the
> appropriate sub-processes over a unix-domain socket.
>
> -Matt
>
yes. clearly, thats the way to go, to use the ability to pass
a file descriptor over a unix-domain socket. one socket per handler
(web server), and the process doing the accept doles out the work as
each handler (web server) finishes a task and is ready to accept
another task. in my memory, i can almost see the description of this
problem and its resolution in a book on threads (i think). could it
have been the addison-wesley swoosh book on threads by behlendorf?
sigh...gotta get better memory installed.
jmb
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? David Greenman
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Matthew Dillon
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Bosko Milekic
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Matthew Dillon
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Bosko Milekic
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Zach Brown
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Matthew Dillon
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Zach Brown
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Matthew Dillon
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Zach Brown
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Jonathan M. Bresler
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Tony Finch
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Matthew Dillon
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Remy Nonnenmacher
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Kip Macy

