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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.szaf.org!news.enyo.de!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Performance of many concurrent delay() calls
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 22:30:24 +0100
Message-ID: <87twbj6kr3.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
References: <1a375eea-b087-4080-a492-62bc26a8123c@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Trace: news.enyo.de 1478554224 4059 192.168.18.20 (7 Nov 2016 21:30:24 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@enyo.de
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Hn9qPIUUXP4zbA4f0Heia2w4XBM=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:32265
Date: 2016-11-07T22:30:24+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

* Olivier Henley:

> Does calling [loop and delay(1.0)] for each of many thousand connected
> clients (gnoga/simple components) is a huge performance hit or not?

Periodic wakeups are considered bad for battery life and also
negatively impact density of VMs (and containers).

> If so, what is the recommended way to implement a periodic, every sec,
> procedure that has to run for every clients; instantiate a single main
> task looping, delay(1.0), over all connections data and call the
> wanted procedure... probably?

I think this depends on what has to be done every second, and to what
degree these actions depend on other resources.