Our Berkeley library for kernel mode supplies several extra functions,
SendToAsync() for example, that have additional parameters to supply a
completion routine and a context. Using this implementation, we are able
to far out perform WinSock; as one would expect in kernel mode.
Jamey
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Bi Chen
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 3:38 PM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] RE: TDI client driver Vs. user mode sockets applicati
on
BSD socket is inefficient to be used on server that must handle large
about
of concurrent TCP connections or UDP requests on Windows Platform
because
it lacks of nonblocking or overlapped caps. One can use select to relief
the
problem somewhat, but not much. In any cases, there will be heck lot of
thread context switching and using a lot of threads. Using Overlapped
WinSocket along with IO completion port and/or OS (Windows) provided
thread
pool, saves all those boatload of overhead.
On Linux, it is a bit different story. However, Liunx community,
especially
Oralce realize that blocking BSD socket and lack of asynchronies IO is
hugh
drag in their quest to beat server performance of Windows. They are
adding
those in 2.5 kerenl.
Bi
-----Original Message-----
From: Maxim S. Shatskih [mailto:xxxxx@storagecraft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 2:53 PM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] RE: TDI client driver Vs. user mode sockets applicati
on
RE: [ntdev] RE: TDI client driver Vs. user mode sockets applicationIn
what respect namely the BSD socket model is inefficient?
Max
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@storagecraft.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%