3 ms·

No, it's pretty well understood at this point that epoll is worse by comparison. You can see it quite clearly in the number of gotchas and the limitations when

No, it's pretty well understood at this point that epoll is worse by comparison. You can see it quite clearly in the number of gotchas and the limitations when compared to kqueue: https://habr.com/en/post/600123/#linux-and-epoll https://habr.com/en/post/600123/#linux-and-epoll

ajross 4y ago
Again it amuses me that you've now flipped twice between "worse by comparison / deserving of criticism" and outrageous hyperbole like "fundamentally broken". I can't tell if you want to debate the minutiae of OS synchronization abstractions or just yell at me. I'm happy to do the former if you'll just put the knives away.
- naasking 4y ago
  I already addressed this. There's no flipping, they mean the same thing in this context; epoll was supposed to allow the expression of a certain class of programs, but it instead instead encouraged a bunch of broken, fragile programming patterns, and epoll tiself required numerous revisions and extensions to to actually get the behaviour it should have had to begin with, and also limited to a subset of the kernel abstractions kqueue supports. That's considerably worse than kqueue to the point where it's broken. I don't see any further need to discuss it frankly, we've each said our piece.
  - ajross 4y ago
    > [reasoned debate and outrageous hyperbole] mean the same thing in this context; Then with all respect, I think your strategy for debate is fundamentally broken, not unlike your understanding of the epoll facility or ability to read its man page, so I take my leave.
    - naasking 4y ago
      > I think your strategy for debate is fundamentally broken I find that pretty rich considering you provided literally no evidence of your claims, where I provided at least one detailed analysis of both epoll and kqueue in addition to the article for this thread, and yet you somehow feel entitled to make personal attacks on my technical abilities. But sure, you do you. Best of luck with that.

ajross 4y ago

Again it amuses me that you've now flipped twice between "worse by comparison / deserving of criticism" and outrageous hyperbole like "fundamentally broken". I can't tell if you want to debate the minutiae of OS synchronization abstractions or just yell at me. I'm happy to do the former if you'll just put the knives away.

naasking 4y ago
I already addressed this. There's no flipping, they mean the same thing in this context; epoll was supposed to allow the expression of a certain class of programs, but it instead instead encouraged a bunch of broken, fragile programming patterns, and epoll tiself required numerous revisions and extensions to to actually get the behaviour it should have had to begin with, and also limited to a subset of the kernel abstractions kqueue supports. That's considerably worse than kqueue to the point where it's broken. I don't see any further need to discuss it frankly, we've each said our piece.
- ajross 4y ago
  > [reasoned debate and outrageous hyperbole] mean the same thing in this context; Then with all respect, I think your strategy for debate is fundamentally broken, not unlike your understanding of the epoll facility or ability to read its man page, so I take my leave.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > I think your strategy for debate is fundamentally broken I find that pretty rich considering you provided literally no evidence of your claims, where I provided at least one detailed analysis of both epoll and kqueue in addition to the article for this thread, and yet you somehow feel entitled to make personal attacks on my technical abilities. But sure, you do you. Best of luck with that.