[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKIEDFDEAC.davids@webmaster.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:19:49 -0700
From: "David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com>
To: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: sendfile to nonblocking socket
> David Schwartz пишет:
> > You have a misunderstanding about the semantics of 'sendfile'.
> The 'sendfile' function is just a more efficient version of a
> read followed by a write. If you did a read followed by a write,
> it would block as well (in the read).
> >
> > DS
> sendfile function is not just a more efficient version of a read
> followed by a write. It reads from one fd and write to another at tha
> same time. Please try to read 2G, and then write 2G - and how much
> memory you will be need and how much time you will loose while reading
> 2G from disk, but not writing them to socket.
You are correct. What I meant to say was that it's just a more efficient version of 'mmap'ing a file and then 'write'ing from the 'mmap'. The 'write' to a non-blocking socket can still 'block' on disk I/O.
> If you know more
> efficient method to transfer file from disk to network - please advise.
> Now all I want is really non-blocking sendfile. Currently sendfile is
> non-blocking on network, but not on disk i/o. And when I have network
> faster than disk - I get block.
There are many different techniques and which is correct depends on what direction you want to go. POSIX asynchronous I/O is one possibility. Threads plus epoll is another. It really depends upon how much performance you need, how much complexity you can tolerate, and how portable you need to be.
DS
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists