And how about one person per development team from all of the widely used
ircd's?
Regards,
Aaron
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Carlo Wood wrote:
> Sounds like a good idea.
>
> I started a new project on http://savannah.gnu.org/
> for this.
>
> We should add one person per large network with
> admin rig
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Darren Smith wrote:
> I mean I added a usleep() before the poll in s_bsd.c for the undernet
> 2.10.10 code.
>
> timeout = (IRCD_MIN(delay2, delay)) * 1000;
> + usleep(10); <- New Line
> nfds = poll(poll_fds, pfd_count, timeout);
Why not just add the additional delay int
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Kev wrote:
> Wouldn't have the effect. The original point was that adding the usleep()
> gives some time for some more file descriptors to become ready before calling
> poll(), thus increasing the number of file descriptors poll() can return
> per system call. Adding the time
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Darren Smith wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've been testing the modified Undernet (2.10.10) code with Vincent
> Sweeney based on the simple usleep(10) addition to s_bsd.c
>
> PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIME WCPUCPU | # USERS
> 2 0 96348K 96144K poll 0 29.0H 39.01% 39
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On February 4, 2002 07:26 am, Aaron Sethman wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > In an effort to somehow control the mushrooming number of IO interface
> > > strategies, why not take a look at the wor
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Kev wrote:
> > If that's true, I confess I can't quite see your point even still. Once
> > the event is generated, ircd should read or write as much as it can, then
> > not pay any attention to the socket until readiness is again signaled by
> > the generat
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> In an effort to somehow control the mushrooming number of IO interface
> strategies, why not take a look at the work Ben and Suparna are doing in aio,
> and see if there's an interface mechanism there that can be repurposed?
When AIO no longer sucks o
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Dan Kegel wrote:
> I'd like to know how it disagrees.
> I believe rtsig requires you to tweak your I/O code in three ways:
> 1. you need to pick a realtime signal number to use for an event queue
Did that.
> 2. you need to wrap your read()/write() calls on the socket with co
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Kev wrote:
> >
> > > The /dev/epoll patch is good, but the interface is different enough
> > > from /dev/poll that ircd would need a new engine_epoll.c anyway.
> > > (It would look like a cross between engine_devpoll.c and engine_rtsig.c,
> > > as it would n
