[snip]
> NT has solved this whole class of problem with completion ports. They
> handle the huge-number-of-connection problem well, they handle other
> types of events, they are SMP-efficient. The concept goes back to the
> days of VMS, why do unix kernel developers have such a big case of NIH?
> These select() replacement proposals and POSIX aio have such limited
> uses. They're crap.
To quote the document leaked from MS last year on Linux:
There are literally hundreds of small research projects attempting to
improve various parts of the Linux OS.
Some projects include:
* Linux 2.2 - High Availability features such as deeper RAID support
(RAID 0, 1, 5 supported today), volume management; file system
performance improvements; asynchronous I/O & completion ports;
Ipv6; . An excellent feature summary can be found on:
http://lwn.net/980730/a/2.2chFinal.html.
Seems we already have completion ports ;)
If I recall they were added late in the 2.1.x development cycle, you wasted
a full head of steam and a batch of flames for nothing I'm afraid.
Gerhard
-- gmack@imag.net<>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/