RE: write() vs aio_write()

2001-05-01 Thread ªL­^¶W
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of 'Alfred Perlstein' Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 8:36 AM To: Charles Randall Cc: ªL­^¶W; Freebsd-Hackers Subject: Re: write() vs aio_write() * Charles Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010

Re: write() vs aio_write()

2001-04-30 Thread Mike Silbersack
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Jan Mikkelsen wrote: > Mike Silbersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [ On using aio on disks vs. sockets ] > >Sockets already support non-blocking IO, and have for a long while. > >Hence, the socket code is probably more optimized for non-blocking > >operation than AIO operati

Re: write() vs aio_write()

2001-04-30 Thread 'Alfred Perlstein'
* Charles Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010430 10:26] wrote: > Regarding aio_*, Alfred Perlstein writes: > >It's a good idea to use it for disk IO, probably not a good > >idea for network IO. > > Could you elaborate? Sure. Network IO can be done without blocking (unless you take a fault on the s

Re: write() vs aio_write()

2001-04-30 Thread Jan Mikkelsen
Mike Silbersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [ On using aio on disks vs. sockets ] >Sockets already support non-blocking IO, and have for a long while. >Hence, the socket code is probably more optimized for non-blocking >operation than AIO operation. As a plus, using non-blocking socket >operations

RE: write() vs aio_write()

2001-04-30 Thread Mike Silbersack
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Charles Randall wrote: > Regarding aio_*, Alfred Perlstein writes: > >It's a good idea to use it for disk IO, probably not a good > >idea for network IO. > > Could you elaborate? > > -Charles Sockets already support non-blocking IO, and have for a long while. Hence, the soc

RE: write() vs aio_write()

2001-04-30 Thread Charles Randall
Regarding aio_*, Alfred Perlstein writes: >It's a good idea to use it for disk IO, probably not a good >idea for network IO. Could you elaborate? -Charles To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: write() vs aio_write()

2001-04-30 Thread Alfred Perlstein
* ªL­^¶W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010430 06:47] wrote: > > * ªL­^¶W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010430 06:17] wrote: > > Dear all: > > > >Because write() use buffer cache, I want to know whether aio_write() > is > > better than write() in FreeBSD 4.1 . Is aio_write() > > > > outperform write() ? Or a

RE: write() vs aio_write()

2001-04-30 Thread ªL­^¶W
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alfred Perlstein Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 9:31 PM To: ªL­^¶W Cc: Freebsd-Hackers Subject: Re: write() vs aio_write() * ªL­^¶W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010430 06:17] wrote: > Dear all: >

Re: write() vs aio_write()

2001-04-30 Thread Alfred Perlstein
* ªL­^¶W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010430 06:17] wrote: > Dear all: > >Because write() use buffer cache, I want to know whether aio_write() is > better than write() in FreeBSD 4.1 . Is aio_write() > > outperform write() ? Or any related performance comparison between the two > system call

write() vs aio_write()

2001-04-30 Thread ªL­^¶W
Dear all: Because write() use buffer cache, I want to know whether aio_write() is better than write() in FreeBSD 4.1 . Is aio_write() outperform write() ? Or any related performance comparison between the two system call Thanks in advance Richard_Lin To Unsubscribe: send m