Re: aio_read/write versus O_NONBLOCK
- From: scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Scott Lurndal)
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 18:55:43 GMT
phil-news-nospam@xxxxxxxx writes:
On Wed, 14 May 2008 00:13:59 -0400 Barry Margolin <barmar@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| In article
| <fe463120-697d-4100-9ca8-b74083491664@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
| RazvanD <razvand@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|
|> Hi!
|>
|> Could someone point me to some articles or give me some hints on the
|> advantages/disadvantages of asynchronous operations on files (aio_read/
|> aio_read) versus normal operations (read/write) used with O_NONBLOCK
|> when opening a file.
|>
|> aio_read/aio_write are indeed more flexible. But, at least on Linux/
|> glibc, they are implemented using POSIX threads. Wouldn't a carefully
|> designed program using O_NONBLOCK for files best a program using
|> aio_read/aio_write? I think my question should be: are asynchronous I/
|> O operations only more flexible or are they also faster?
|
| I'm not certain about Linux, but on many systems O_NONBLOCK has no
| effect on ordinary file streams.
It has not had any effect on ordinary file streams in Linux in the programs
I have written that tried it (a couple of them).
It's pretty much of a waste of time. O_NONBLOCK doesn't make any sense
for file descriptors that can't block on a read (i.e. disk-based files).
scott
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: aio_read/write versus O_NONBLOCK
- From: phil-news-nospam
- Re: aio_read/write versus O_NONBLOCK
- References:
- aio_read/write versus O_NONBLOCK
- From: RazvanD
- Re: aio_read/write versus O_NONBLOCK
- From: Barry Margolin
- Re: aio_read/write versus O_NONBLOCK
- From: phil-news-nospam
- aio_read/write versus O_NONBLOCK
- Prev by Date: file descriptors are not being free even after closing the socket connection..
- Next by Date: Re: aio_read/write versus O_NONBLOCK
- Previous by thread: Re: aio_read/write versus O_NONBLOCK
- Next by thread: Re: aio_read/write versus O_NONBLOCK
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
