On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 10:48:29PM +0100, Arjan de Vet wrote:
> Christopher Sedore wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Arjan de Vet wrote:
> >
> >> Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> >>
> >> >This is very interesting data and I was just wondering about the
> >> >actual state of functionality in our AIO code
Christopher Sedore wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Arjan de Vet wrote:
>
>> Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>>
>> >This is very interesting data and I was just wondering about the
>> >actual state of functionality in our AIO code just the other day,
>> >oddly enough. Does anyone have a PR# for the mention
On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Arjan de Vet wrote:
> Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>
> >This is very interesting data and I was just wondering about the
> >actual state of functionality in our AIO code just the other day,
> >oddly enough. Does anyone have a PR# for the mentioned patches?
>
> kern/12053
>
>
Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>This is very interesting data and I was just wondering about the
>actual state of functionality in our AIO code just the other day,
>oddly enough. Does anyone have a PR# for the mentioned patches?
kern/12053
A Dec 16 version of the patch can be found at:
http
This is very interesting data and I was just wondering about the
actual state of functionality in our AIO code just the other day,
oddly enough. Does anyone have a PR# for the mentioned patches?
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the b
With respect to AIO... we run a data server which multiplexes
on the select() function, and uses AIO to do all it's I/O. This
has been a very stable system.
system : 4.0-19990827-SNAP
start time : 1999/12/24 11:14:44
up time (days hh:mm:ss): 12 13:32:53
C
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you
write:
>> The best fix I've thought of thus far (other than async I/O, which I
>> understand isn't ready for prime time) would be to have a number of kernel
>
>Speaking of AIO, which I would really like to use if possible, how
>actively maintained is it? The cop
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Wes Peters wrote:
> Kip Macy wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The best fix I've thought of thus far (other than async I/O, which I
> > > understand isn't ready for prime time) would be to have a number of kernel
> >
> > Speaking of AIO, which I would really like to use if possible,
Kip Macy wrote:
>
> >
> > The best fix I've thought of thus far (other than async I/O, which I
> > understand isn't ready for prime time) would be to have a number of kernel
>
> Speaking of AIO, which I would really like to use if possible, how
> actively maintained is it? The copyright on vfs_a
>
> The best fix I've thought of thus far (other than async I/O, which I
> understand isn't ready for prime time) would be to have a number of kernel
Speaking of AIO, which I would really like to use if possible, how
actively maintained is it? The copyright on vfs_aio.c is 1997, suggesting
to me
10 matches
Mail list logo
