From fork-admin@xent.com Tue Sep 3 22:20:28 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.example.com Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 149C716F69 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 22:19:46 +0100 (IST) Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1] by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0) for jm@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 03 Sep 2002 22:19:46 +0100 (IST) Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g83KStZ01954 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 21:28:56 +0100 Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8361294103; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:26:02 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: fork@example.com Received: from mail.evergo.net (unknown [206.191.151.2]) by xent.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A643E294099 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:25:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 18433 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2002 20:27:39 -0000 Received: from dsl.206.191.151.102.evergo.net (HELO JMHALL) (206.191.151.102) by mail.evergo.net with SMTP; 3 Sep 2002 20:27:39 -0000 Reply-To: From: "John Hall" To: Subject: RE: Gasp! Message-Id: <005601c25388$59f8f220$0200a8c0@JMHALL> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: fork-admin@xent.com Errors-To: fork-admin@xent.com X-Beenthere: fork@example.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:27:40 -0700 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=7.0 tests=INVALID_MSGID,IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 version=2.41-cvs X-Spam-Level: I used Async IO on System V in the '87, '88 time frame. I did it that way cause I thought it was cool to see if I could keep the tape spinning. I can believe Linux is catching up to this, but some ability to do async IO already existed in the UNIX world. John Hall 13464 95th Ave NE Kirkland WA 98034 > -----Original Message----- > From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On Behalf Of Adam > L. Beberg > Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 7:35 PM > To: fork@example.com > Subject: Gasp! > > "Red Hat Linux Advanced Server provides many high end features such as: > Support for Asynchronous I/O. Now read I/O no longer needs to stall your > application while waiting for completion." > > Could it be? After 20 years without this feature UNIX finally catches up > to > Windows and has I/O that doesnt totally suck for nontrivial apps? No way! > > OK, so they do it with signals or a flag, which is completely ghetto, but > at > least they are trying. Keep trying guys, you got the idea, but not the > clue. > > - Adam L. "Duncan" Beberg > http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/ > beberg@mithral.com