LDAP timeouts during failure conditions
alex at digriz.org.uk
Thu Jun 30 17:50:16 CEST 2011
John Dennis <jdennis at redhat.com> wrote:
> Sorry, forgot who said this in the last couple of days, but they
> endorsed the event loop driven asynchronous model. After working for
> many years on a variety of servers I too have come to believe event
> loop driven architectures are superior in contrast to forking
> children, spawning threads, etc. Anything we've written recently
> follows the event loop model. It's not perfect by any means but it
> gets rid of a lot of nasty problems and IMHO the resulting code
> simplier and easier to understand, which means less bugs. It's too big
> a change for FreeRADIUS but I thought I would at least endorse the
> previous comment.
I generally agree, it's what I use too, but there are lots of cases
where the spawn thread/fork model is a better idea. Software such as
syslog-ng is currently limited to just a single CPU, apache would be
pretty horrible without, etc.
Really boils down to if the task can benefit from parallelism and is CPU
bound rather than IO. I suspect though you were not making a sweeping
statement for all applications though :)
.sigmonster says: Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed.
More information about the Freeradius-Devel