LDAP timeouts during failure conditions

[Alexander Clouter]

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 :)

Cheers

-- 
Alexander Clouter
.sigmonster says: Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed.