-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of 'Alfred Perlstein'
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 8:36 AM
To: Charles Randall
Cc: ªL^¶W; Freebsd-Hackers
Subject: Re: write() vs aio_write()
* Charles Randall [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010430 10:26] wrote
Dear all:
Because write() use buffer cache, I want to know whether aio_write() is
better than write() in FreeBSD 4.1 . Is aio_write()
outperform write() ? Or any related performance comparison between the two
system call
Thanks in advance
Richard_Lin
To Unsubscribe: send
* ªL^¶W [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010430 06:17] wrote:
Dear all:
Because write() use buffer cache, I want to know whether aio_write() is
better than write() in FreeBSD 4.1 . Is aio_write()
outperform write() ? Or any related performance comparison between the two
system call
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alfred Perlstein
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 9:31 PM
To: ªL^¶W
Cc: Freebsd-Hackers
Subject: Re: write() vs aio_write()
* ªL^¶W [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010430 06:17] wrote:
Dear all:
Because write
* ªL^¶W [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010430 06:47] wrote:
* ªL^¶W [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010430 06:17] wrote:
Dear all:
Because write() use buffer cache, I want to know whether aio_write()
is
better than write() in FreeBSD 4.1 . Is aio_write()
outperform write() ? Or any related
Regarding aio_*, Alfred Perlstein writes:
It's a good idea to use it for disk IO, probably not a good
idea for network IO.
Could you elaborate?
-Charles
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Charles Randall wrote:
Regarding aio_*, Alfred Perlstein writes:
It's a good idea to use it for disk IO, probably not a good
idea for network IO.
Could you elaborate?
-Charles
Sockets already support non-blocking IO, and have for a long while.
Hence, the socket code
Mike Silbersack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ On using aio on disks vs. sockets ]
Sockets already support non-blocking IO, and have for a long while.
Hence, the socket code is probably more optimized for non-blocking
operation than AIO operation. As a plus, using non-blocking socket
operations will
* Charles Randall [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010430 10:26] wrote:
Regarding aio_*, Alfred Perlstein writes:
It's a good idea to use it for disk IO, probably not a good
idea for network IO.
Could you elaborate?
Sure.
Network IO can be done without blocking (unless you take a fault
on the source
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
Mike Silbersack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ On using aio on disks vs. sockets ]
Sockets already support non-blocking IO, and have for a long while.
Hence, the socket code is probably more optimized for non-blocking
operation than AIO operation. As a
10 matches
Mail list logo