Re: Performance Adjustments: Silly Frames and poll() timeout
David C Niemi <[email protected]> Wed, 7 Apr 2004 18:24:27 -0400 (EDT)
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.beep.beepcore.c.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I think basing it on the actual number of sessions would make some sense, but I have anywhere from 1-4 sessions per profile instance right now, and the optimum timeout is consistently near 10 msec, mostly independent of the number of sessions. It might also make sense to only look through the sessions that actually exist instead of the theoretical max supported, perhaps, but it is not quite clear to me how to do that. DCN On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, William J. Mills wrote: > Mark Richardson wrote most of that. > > I suspect the optimization you are doing is optimising for a > single connection. I am wondering what the behavior on the > "server" side will be when it accepts more than 1 connection. > > I think, if I remember correctly, Mark was somewhat concerned > with portability and so made some least common denominator > trype choices in the poll code. I can well believe that tuning > may be needed. I think the timeouts as set are pessimistic, > and probably should be set based on the actual number of session > rather than the max. ------------------------------------------------------- -- David C. Niemi Adeptech Systems, Inc. -- -- Reston, Virginia, USA http://www.adeptech.com/ -- ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click