Fastream Technologies wrote: > On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Arno Garrels <arno.garr...@gmx.de> > wrote: > >> Arno Garrels wrote: >>> Fastream Technologies wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> Has the IPv6 async DNS resolving issue been resolved? How >>>> many socket/threads? >>> >>> There is a (hopefully) thread-safe new class which provides >>> async lookups. One global object of this class is allocated in >>> unit initialization with the maximum number of threads that it >>> may spawn currently set to the number of processors.ยด >> >> How fast/slow this implementation works with thousands of >> concurrent requests is of course untested. One DNS lookup may >> take one or even multiple seconds in the worst case. Since once >> the internal call to GetAddrInfo() is fired cancelation of this >> request won't free this thread for new task (it has to wait until >> GetAddrInfo() returned before it is able to pick another request >> from the request queue). >> >>> >>> -- >>> Arnio Garrels >> > > I think this approach could be ok for our reverse proxy where the > number of target servers is limited and we have built-in DNS cache. > > But for content/forward proxy, under heavy load, this would cause a > bottleneck.
Question, how do you think Windows achives async behaviour? For instance when you call API WSAAsyncGetHostByName(). Without using threads under the hood, it's AFAIK imposible. -- Arno Garrels > > SZ -- To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list please goto http://lists.elists.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twsocket Visit our website at http://www.overbyte.be
