Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!ucsd!sdcsvax!net1!hutch From: hutch@net1.ucsd.edu (Jim Hutchison) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: GaaaK! Unix networking called "GOOD"?!? Message-ID: <4935@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> Date: 9 May 88 07:47:58 GMT References: <10227@stb.UUCP> Sender: nobody@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU Reply-To: hutch@net1.UUCP (Jim Hutchison) Lines: 33 Keywords: Unix,SYSV,4.2,Amiga In article <10227@stb.UUCP> michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) writes: >Unix? Isn't that the thing that limits you to 16 files per process? Actually the limitation is related to the maximum number of open files a process gets (since it is done using file descriptors so you can do nice generic read/write/select on them if you wan to). This sun is very friendly and will happily let me have 30 open files. It's pretty much a configuration issue. [...] >In Chaos, you can easily wait for a message on any port, including getting >software interrupts, or even running as the task that sent you the message >(undocumented, but it's there in 1.2) > >In sockets, you can only select(), and then you have to actually poll >to see which one said hi. If you poll in order (1-2-3-4-5-etc), it is >possible for a message to come in on 2 after you've check it. Not actually, in actuality select() returns a bitmask of "ready" file descriptors. Note: with UDP (and perhaps RDP) you only need to have one port open, check out the mazewars game. Admittedly the guy(s) on the server get(s) a decided advantage when the net load goes up, such is life. >In sockets, pipes are completely unguaranteed for multiple writers. I'm confused as to what you are refering to here. >p.s. "Give me a good multitasking system with decent networking, or give >me death (a model 1 in good working order)". Give me an out-of-band message, and I'll stop taking singing lessons. :-) Jim Hutchison UUCP: {dcdwest,ucbvax}!cs!net1!hutch ARPA: Hutch@net1.ucsd.edu Disclaimer: I represent my own opinions.