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
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:10:22 +0100
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <1lxkqa97hflr0.1c0bm39tzl8ty$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <DA%7w.753721$Y4.288171@fx24.iad>
 <86bf69c8-eb08-4696-b6c9-3784f5c42213@googlegroups.com>
 <Jwy8w.500685$Ub6.487517@fx20.iad>
 <d4b8f45d-e327-4d78-a0d6-838aba063e4d@googlegroups.com>
 <lyoascltws.fsf@pushface.org> <YYE8w.620042$Lj7.284655@fx22.iad>
 <87389olqie.fsf@ixod.org> <zTF8w.509165$No4.167804@fx19.iad>
 <fca06fd0-6970-46a5-95b9-6b6317a37f7c@googlegroups.com>
 <aSG8w.567817$Q61.266688@fx13.iad> <m40odq$tdv$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <19fa65d4-72c9-44ab-b44b-4ea0929c18f2@googlegroups.com>
 <m441oa$vv7$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <25731193-c0b5-4ab7-87ff-ba8c6a42cdbd@googlegroups.com>
 <m446i9$2dg$1@loke.gir.dk> <b1qru34mbble.yzrut134ayon$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <m45vp7$43e$1@loke.gir.dk> <1se4bvo6gaqft.16cfjaiketlz0$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <m4e3rq$19b$1@loke.gir.dk> <13efsbp4ynti1.1qsb6buqa4a60.dlg@40tude.net>
 <m4gh01$dq0$1@loke.gir.dk>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyHeW7QjJmC1odUjK4LkDA.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:23541
Date: 2014-11-19T10:10:22+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:25:03 -0600, Randy Brukardt wrote:

>> Depends on how you measured it. Latencies may increase for obvious reason
>> of context switching. The rest should have no influence.
> 
> I probably mispoke; I think I was mainly concerned about server load than 
> raw performance (the public Internet, after all, is relatively slow compared 
> to a computer). And it made the web server use 10 times the CPU (or 
> something in that range) compared to "smart" busy-waiting using blocking 
> sockets. The resulting server load made the server unusable (it would have 
> taken 100-150% of the available CPU to provide decent performance).

I see. However measuring load under Windows is a tricky part. You might
have 10% visible load and 100% real load, because the performance counters
count only fully used time quants. So, I would guess, that polling, which
does not actually switches, threads would show system load close to the
reality, while in the case of blocking it could be much lesser than actual.

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