Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!oliveb!olivey!jerry From: jerry@olivey.olivetti.com (Jerry Aguirre) Newsgroups: news.software.b Subject: Re: NNTP vs Cnews (was: Re: Cnews is not for me) Message-ID: <46555@oliveb.olivetti.com> Date: 13 Aug 89 23:56:01 GMT References: <2828@ndsuvax.UUCP> <1989Aug12.221624.12153@utstat.uucp> <1894@ucsd.EDU> <1989Aug13.071802.5187@utzoo.uucp> Sender: news@oliveb.olivetti.com Reply-To: jerry@olivey.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Lines: 13 In article <1989Aug13.071802.5187@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >There is a fundamental tradeoff here which simply can't be escaped: >efficient processing of large amounts of news requires amortizing setup >overhead over more than one article, while lightning-fast propagation >requires processing each article as it arrives. You just have to decide Is there a reason that NNTP can't insert the batch headers and pass the news to the processing portion (recnews?) via a pipe instead of a file? In that way a single setup overhead would cover the entire NNTP session. By using a pipe instead of a temporary file the delay between transmission and appearing in the history file could be minimized. Jerry