On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Do you know if a kqueue based solution is cheaper?
Probably should not matter. Syslog writes data to disk synchronously,
right? So anything not involving a disk access is negligible in cost
compared to the main action of writing the log entry.
Regarding syslogd: yes. Regarding the overal system: maybe. Regarding an
overloaded server: every cycle matters.
When you can get the same (features, quality, nice design, ...) cheaper, why
not choose the cheaper one? I don't ask for premature optimization, I just
ask for not bloating something in the first place (if the difference in the
amount of work is small).
I think you'll find the cost of an fstatfs() call is so low that the cost of
setting up monitoring is appreciably similar. I think the right thing to do,
if worried, is to prototype the architecturally simple solution, and then see
if there's a problem. Premature optimization is what happens when you
complicate software in order to solve a performance problem that doesn't
exist, possibly resulting in slower software, and certainly resulting in
harder to maintain software. :-) I'm pretty sure you'll find that the cost
of fstatfs() is basically unmeasurable in this context.
Robert N M Watson
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
