Boost logo

Boost :

From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-04 12:00:44


I've gotten good speedups using non-blocking I/O on NT, but only in
the case where I could overlap expensive computations with the I/O.

From: Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> At 03:13 PM 3/3/2001 +0000, pinkfloydhomer_at_[hidden] wrote:
>
> >Would a non-blocking I/O library addition be off topic in Boost, or
> >wouldn't it?
>
> It certainly wouldn't be off topic for Boost.
>
> But I wonder if it would actually result in a performance improvement on
> most modern operating systems.
>
> Don't most OS's already do anticipatory buffering? Have you run timings?
>
> I ran some timings a few years ago on Win NT, and found that the compiler's
> runtime library was actually slightly more efficient than explicitly
> calling the native Win NT non-blocking I/O. The build-in OS I/O buffering
> was more efficient that anything I could do in user code, perhaps because
> it remaps memory and does other supervisor mode tricks you can't do in user
> mode.
>
> But if your timings show significant performance enhancements, non-blocking
> I/O might well be of interest.
>
> --Beman
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk