Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!news.eas.asu.edu!noao!rstevens From: rstevens@noao.edu (W. Richard Stevens) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.advocacy Subject: Re: multiple httpds vs threads vs ... (was BSDI Vs. NT...) Date: 27 Dec 1995 13:36:10 GMT Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA Lines: 16 Message-ID: <4bri4a$q2r@noao.edu> References: <DK5Crs.I77@metrics.com> <4bmsjp$7lv@elf.bsdi.com> <bakulDK7u6M.LrM@netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: gemini.tuc.noao.edu Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:1852 comp.unix.advocacy:12672 > I was also surprised to find that > NT's select() implementation can handle many more fds than BSDi, > SunOS, Solaris, NetBSD, FreeBSD, Linux etc. Only IRIX did better > (haven't yet tested a number of other UNIX machines). For OSes > where I have the source I can recompile the kernel with bigger > FDSET_SIZE but they really should be doing dynamic allocation. Most Unix <sys/types.h> headers have something like #ifndef FD_SETSIZE #define FD_SETSIZE 256 letting the application define this size before including this header, so I don't see what the problem is. (Or are you referring to something else?) Rich Stevens