From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 01:06:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 01:05:50 -0400 Received: from host154.207-175-42.redhat.com ([207.175.42.154]:36525 "EHLO lacrosse.corp.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 01:05:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 01:05:02 -0400 From: Benjamin LaHaise To: "Christopher K. St. John" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Davide Libenzi Subject: Re: [PATCH] /dev/epoll update ... Message-ID: <20010920010502.A7960@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <3BA97155.4D2D53AC@distributopia.com> <3BA9740D.DD16AE9E@distributopia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3BA9740D.DD16AE9E@distributopia.com>; from cks@distributopia.com on Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:43:57PM -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:43:57PM -0500, Christopher K. St. John wrote: > Sorry, bad editing, that should be: > > Assume a large but bursty current of low bandwidth > high latency connections instead of a continuous steady > flood of high bandwidth low latency connections. Isn't asynchronous io a better model for that case? -ben