On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Christopher Sedore wrote:
> You might try using aio_waitcomplete instead of aio_suspend. I wrote it
> because I hated the aio_suspend/array methodology.
That does look like a nice alternative to aio_suspend... I'll have to
have another look at AIO then.
> You should also
You might try using aio_waitcomplete instead of aio_suspend. I wrote it
because I hated the aio_suspend/array methodology. You should also make
sure you bzero the aiocb structure before use as some of the fields could
cause strange behavior if left with random data.
-Chris
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Richard Hodges wrote:
> > I tried AIO some months ago (4.1R or 4.2R), but had some trouble
> > with AIO, mainly that it seemed to lose track of half my files.
> > Not any particular files, it seemed that at any moment it would
> > just pick ten or so (out of maybe 20-25 fil
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Richard Hodges wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Josh Osborne wrote:
>
> > On Friday, June 22, 2001, at 07:01 PM, E.B. Dreger wrote:
> > > My question is, from a performance standpoint, in what situations are
> > > these techniques most appropriate?
>
> > AIO is good when y
Josh Osborne wrote:
> BSD/OS had select working for FFS files (returns ready to read
> if the block the file pointer is at is in the buffer cache, and
> sends a read ahead request). Or at least they (Paul?) calmed
> they did, I never tested it.
This would be good to see in FreeBSD.
> I try to a
"E.B. Dreger" wrote:
>
> Quick question, hopefully not too basic for this list:
>
> AIO vs. non-blocking IO vs. kernel queues
>
> I'm familiar with (and *love*) kernel queues. Non-blocking IO is
> straightforward. AIO seems simple enough.
>
> My question is, from a performance standpoint, in
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Josh Osborne wrote:
> [...]
> >> AIO is good when you are not receiving much data (or not receiving
> >> it very frequently), and presumably want very low latency.
> >
> > What if you want good performance with "moderate" disk IO, say ten
> > to twenty megabytes per second co
[...]
>> AIO is good when you are not receiving much data (or not receiving
>> it very frequently), and presumably want very low latency.
>
> What if you want good performance with "moderate" disk IO, say ten
> to twenty megabytes per second continuously?
I don't know if select/kqueue/poll "work"
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Josh Osborne wrote:
> On Friday, June 22, 2001, at 07:01 PM, E.B. Dreger wrote:
> > My question is, from a performance standpoint, in what situations are
> > these techniques most appropriate?
> AIO is good when you are not receiving much data (or not receiving
> it very f
On Friday, June 22, 2001, at 07:01 PM, E.B. Dreger wrote:
> Quick question, hopefully not too basic for this list:
>
> AIO vs. non-blocking IO vs. kernel queues
>
> I'm familiar with (and *love*) kernel queues. Non-blocking IO is
> straightforward. AIO seems simple enough.
>
> My question is, f
* E.B. Dreger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010622 18:01] wrote:
> Quick question, hopefully not too basic for this list:
>
> AIO vs. non-blocking IO vs. kernel queues
>
> I'm familiar with (and *love*) kernel queues. Non-blocking IO is
> straightforward. AIO seems simple enough.
>
> My question is, f
Quick question, hopefully not too basic for this list:
AIO vs. non-blocking IO vs. kernel queues
I'm familiar with (and *love*) kernel queues. Non-blocking IO is
straightforward. AIO seems simple enough.
My question is, from a performance standpoint, in what situations are
these techniques mo
12 matches
Mail list logo
