From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3e9e2e402ed75bc3
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
X-Received: by 10.180.212.113 with SMTP id nj17mr10473117wic.7.1366711636801;
        Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 hg5ni16198wib.1!nntp.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: aws vs ruby rails or php? how much faster?
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:08:15 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <1bjhu6xj0sh4e.1u1r23nzr3zrh$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <cb0c69fa-3393-4bbf-88af-0399057226f7@googlegroups.com>
 <87vc7fm3lp.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> <op.wvyn3phdule2fv@cardamome>
 <517627a4$0$32104$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <op.wvzfj1adule2fv@cardamome>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2013-04-23T12:08:15+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:10:39 +0200, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Asynchronous I/O can be achieved with Ada too, and that does not implies  
> tasking, just wrapping what the OS provides for that.

Oh, it does. I don't know what you guys are talking about, but asynchronous
I/O is intimately related to tasking.

If you have tasks you normally don't need asynchronous I/O, you do it in a
blocking way.

If you have one task or less tasks than I/O requests pending, you do I/O
asynchronously.

With many simultaneous requests you should go asynchronous because the
number of tasks is limited. An OS can handle far less simultaneous tasks
than simultaneous I/O requests/channels.

For either HD or sockets you could do I/O synchronously (blocking) or
asynchronously (non-blocking).

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de