Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 15:37:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ryan Bloom <rbb@raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Apache List <new-httpd@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Memory Hog
In-Reply-To: <19991010142936.G25178@io.com>
Message-ID: 
 <Pine.LNX.4.04.9910101534460.31759-100000@chosondo.raleigh.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org


select is not more efficient that poll.  The current ap_poll when
implemented using select is more efficient than the one implemented using
poll.  That is a side-effect of what I was doing when I was coding it.  We
NEED both implementations, because there are platforms that don't support
select, or don't support it fully.  A good example of this, is BeOS, which
doesn't pay attention to any of the select sets other than the read one.

The performance of the poll based ap_poll is not tragic.  It is also not
unfixable.  There are ways to fix the performance af ap_pool when it uses
poll.  Nobody has done them yet.

Ryan

On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 10, 1999 at 02:24:46PM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
> > Funnily enough, if poll() is emulated with select() the implementation
> > is far more efficient.
> 
> What was the purpose of poll() if select() is more efficient?
> 
> -- 
> Manoj Kasichainula - manojk at io dot com - http://www.io.com/~manojk/
> "Life is like an analogy." - Aaron Allston
> 

_______________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom		rbb@raleigh.ibm.com
4205 S Miami Blvd	
RTP, NC 27709		It's a beautiful sight to see good dancers 
			doing simple steps.  It's a painful sight to
			see beginners doing complicated patterns.