On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 08:31:49AM -0500, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote: > Yes, moving to poll() (and alternatives) is a TODO list item. > We're been moving slow because of a few unknowns, namely > interaction with threads and performance. Positive operational > experience using poll() here would help move things forward. poll tends to suffer from thousands of connections. But the move to epoll would be an a bit larger patch. There you can not loop over all fd's and see if any of those is readable or writable, epoll gives you the descriptors on which something has happened. To support huge numbers of connections where 99% of them are idle it might be better anyway as the overhead to scan all fd's might become too large. Volker
Attachment:
pgpwJpu2oq5ju.pgp
Description: PGP signature