*BSD News Article 58204


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