Marc, Henning, thank you for the insight.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Marc Espie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 11:43:20AM +0200, Jonathan Schleifer wrote: > > "Edwin Eyan Moragas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > the question is, which one is more useful when writing new servers? > > > kqueue or poll? > > > > poll is more portable, while kqueue should be more performant (at > > least, that's why it was invented). If your app only needs to run on > > OpenBSD, NetBSD and FreeBSD, you're just fine with kqueue, otherwise > > use poll. Generally, I think it's better to use poll and sacrifice that > > unnoticable performance gain. > > As usual, depends what you want to do. > > poll() and select() give you control over file descriptors. kqueue > encompasses more events. It's not especially faster, it just leads to > simpler code in case you need the supplementary events. > > If all you need to do is watch over a set of file descriptors, poll > and select are the simplest ones to use... and the most portable. > > In many, many cases, poll() is better. The only case where select comes > close is when you want to watch over most of your file descriptors (because > you access less memory in such a case). > > And then, you should profile. I'm not even sure it makes a difference. > > Most of the places in the system where we have select() are legacies: it > it's not broken, don't fix it. > -- garnet:jasmin:beryllium:gluon 90-12264 90-B
