> > The solution that I took with BestWWWD was to have just one process > accept all the connections and then have it dole the descriptor out to the > appropriate sub-processes over a unix-domain socket. > > -Matt > yes. clearly, thats the way to go, to use the ability to pass a file descriptor over a unix-domain socket. one socket per handler (web server), and the process doing the accept doles out the work as each handler (web server) finishes a task and is ready to accept another task. in my memory, i can almost see the description of this problem and its resolution in a book on threads (i think). could it have been the addison-wesley swoosh book on threads by behlendorf? sigh...gotta get better memory installed. jmb To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? David Greenman
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Matthew Dillon
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Bosko Milekic
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Matthew Dillon
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Bosko Milekic
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Zach Brown
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Matthew Dillon
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Zach Brown
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Matthew Dillon
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Zach Brown
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Jonathan M. Bresler
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Tony Finch
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Matthew Dillon
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Remy Nonnenmacher
- Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? Kip Macy