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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fed2e7871ca258cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-15 03:53:37 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!uni-erlangen.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!news-han1.dfn.de!news.fh-hannover.de!news.cid.net!news.enyo.de!news1.enyo.de!not-for-mail
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Server - tasking and long lived connections
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 13:10:39 +0100
Organization: Enyo's not your organization
Message-ID: <87d71g8z0g.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
References: <mailman.1008382022.25904.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <mailman.1008385861.27043.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aQmfJ/s7SstZEJ6HHJsUuZvhJ5E=
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17948
Date: 2001-12-15T13:10:39+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

James Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> The tasking approach is somewhat more efficient than the traditional
> Unix approach of creating a separate process to handle each 
> connection.

For long-living connections, this might not be the case.  It depends
on several factors.  For example, if there isn't much communication
required between the theads of control handling separate connections,
and each thread of control performs many memory allocations and
deallocations, the separate process implementation is probably faster.

> Context switching will be faster with tasks than with processes.

This depends on the OS and Ada implementation.