Johnathan,
Thanks for running that test for me! I've added your results
(plus a cautionary note about microbenchmarks and a link to
your site) to http://www.kegel.com/dkftpbench/Poller_bench.html
If you haven't already, you might peek at the discussion on
linux-kernel. Linus seems to be on the verge of adding
something like kqueue() to Linux, but appears opposed to
supporting level-triggering; he likes the simplicity of
edge triggering (from the kernel's point of view!). See
http://boudicca.tux.org/hypermail/linux-kernel/2000week44/index.html#9
Thanks,
Dan
Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> I recently stumbled across a message you posted asking for
> microbenchmarks on kqueue. While I do think that microbenchmarks
> are partially misleading, I did run them on my machine for
> various numbers of connections, with varying number of active
> connections. The results are shown below.
>
> The results dovetail with what I expect: kqueue scales depending
> on the number of active connections that it sees, not with the
> total number of connections.
>
> Also, I presented a paper/talk at the recent BSDCon 2000, these
> are available at http://www.freebsd.org/~jlemon if you're interested.
> --
> Jonathan
>
> This is on a single processor 600Mhz Pentium-III with 512MB of
> memory, running FreeBSD 4.x-STABLE:
[ 1 active pipe ]
> cache[10:13pm]> ./Poller_bench 5 1 spk 100 1000 10000 30000
> pipes 100 1000 10000 30000
> select 54 - - -
> poll 50 552 11559 35178
> kqueue 8 8 8 8
[ 10 active pipes ]
> cache[10:13pm]> ./Poller_bench 5 10 spk 100 1000 10000 30000
> pipes 100 1000 10000 30000
> select 100 - - -
> poll 95 571 11697 35499
> kqueue 52 52 55 56
[ 100 active pipes ]
> cache[10:13pm]> ./Poller_bench 5 100 spk 100 1000 10000 30000
> pipes 100 1000 10000 30000
> select 542 - - -
> poll 528 1091 12440 36530
> kqueue 574 592 623 702
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
