From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <20000711212037.24406.qmail@g.bio.cse.psu.edu>
to: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Any significant gotchas? 
In-Reply-To: Message from "Stephen C. Harris" <sharris@sch1.NCTR.FDA.GOV> 
   of "Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:10:45 -0000." <200007112110.QAA09153@sch1.NCTR.FDA.GOV> 
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:20:37 -0400
From: Scott Schwartz <schwartz@bio.cse.psu.edu>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: d82584a2-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

| One thing that concerns me though is the lack of a select() call or 
| some type of async i/o in Plan9, so one could efficiently handle 
| i/o on a large number of files/services without forking too many processes.  

If that turns out to be a problem in real life, then I'd much
prefer to see rfork tuned, rather than just reintroduce old hacks.

| a select()-based approach is orders of magnitude better at throughput
| and maximum number of connections. 
 
And yet people are constantly writing papers about how select() and poll()
are too inefficient, and proposing various other schemes.