On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Kev wrote:
> >
> > > The /dev/epoll patch is good, but the interface is different enough
> > > from /dev/poll that ircd would need a new engine_epoll.c anyway.
> > > (It would look like a cross between engine_devpoll.c and engine_rtsig.c,
> > > as it would n
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Dan Kegel wrote:
> I'd like to know how it disagrees.
> I believe rtsig requires you to tweak your I/O code in three ways:
> 1. you need to pick a realtime signal number to use for an event queue
Did that.
> 2. you need to wrap your read()/write() calls on the socket with co
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> In an effort to somehow control the mushrooming number of IO interface
> strategies, why not take a look at the work Ben and Suparna are doing in aio,
> and see if there's an interface mechanism there that can be repurposed?
When AIO no longer sucks o
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Kev wrote:
> > If that's true, I confess I can't quite see your point even still. Once
> > the event is generated, ircd should read or write as much as it can, then
> > not pay any attention to the socket until readiness is again signaled by
> > the generat
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On February 4, 2002 07:26 am, Aaron Sethman wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > In an effort to somehow control the mushrooming number of IO interface
> > > strategies, why not take a look at the wor
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Darren Smith wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've been testing the modified Undernet (2.10.10) code with Vincent
> Sweeney based on the simple usleep(10) addition to s_bsd.c
>
> PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIME WCPUCPU | # USERS
> 2 0 96348K 96144K poll 0 29.0H 39.01% 39
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Kev wrote:
> Wouldn't have the effect. The original point was that adding the usleep()
> gives some time for some more file descriptors to become ready before calling
> poll(), thus increasing the number of file descriptors poll() can return
> per system call. Adding the time
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Darren Smith wrote:
> I mean I added a usleep() before the poll in s_bsd.c for the undernet
> 2.10.10 code.
>
> timeout = (IRCD_MIN(delay2, delay)) * 1000;
> + usleep(10); <- New Line
> nfds = poll(poll_fds, pfd_count, timeout);
Why not just add the additional delay int
And how about one person per development team from all of the widely used
ircd's?
Regards,
Aaron
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Carlo Wood wrote:
> Sounds like a good idea.
>
> I started a new project on http://savannah.gnu.org/
> for this.
>
> We should add one person per large network with
> admin rig
