Article View: net.bugs.2bsd
Article #160Re: 2.9BSD uucico s l o w n e s s
From: Mark Horton
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 1984 20:58
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 1984 20:58
12 lines
1360 bytes
1360 bytes
The sleep seems to be a (broken) variation of an idea I posted long ago. Unfortunately, the code you posted is clearly wrong. The right way to do it is, after the read returns, if it returned short, to sleep. The code posted unconditionally sleeps before trying the first read. Measurements showed that at 1200 baud it cut way down on system load (and this really makes a difference - a uucico at 1200 baud only adds about .2 to our load average instead of 1 like it used to) with almost no effect on throughput rates, but at 9600 baud it hurts throughput drastically (since 1 second is far too long to sleep at 9600 baud) and is a bad idea. At 4800 it's a close call, and a local decision should be made.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<392@cbosgd.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!markReferences:
<350@cepu.UUCP> <oliveb.183>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 3/23/84; site cbosgd.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!mark From: mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) Newsgroups: net.bugs.2bsd,net.bugs.uucp,net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: 2.9BSD uucico s l o w n e s s Message-ID: <392@cbosgd.UUCP> Date: Thu, 4-Oct-84 16:58:31 EDT Article-I.D.: cbosgd.392 Posted: Thu Oct 4 16:58:31 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 6-Oct-84 04:02:53 EDT References: <350@cepu.UUCP> <oliveb.183> Reply-To: mark@cbpavo.UUCP (Mark Horton) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 12