How does kqueue compare to epoll on Linux? I've written C code using kqueue on OpenBSD and OS X, but have only used epoll via libev (and not at especially high load). I thought the big change came from trading level- for edge-triggered nonblocking IO, but maybe the kqueue implementation is superior for sockets somehow?
The main advantage Erlang has over C/Python/Ruby/etc. is that asynchronous IO is the default throughout all its libraries, and it has a novel technique for handling errors. Its asynchronous design is ultimately about fault tolerance, not raw speed. Also, it can automatically and intelligently handle a lot of asynchronous control flow that node.js makes you manage by hand (which is so 70s!).
You can make event-driven asynchronous systems pretty smoothly in languages with first class coroutines/continuations (like Lua and Scheme), but most libraries aren't written with that use case in mind. Erlang's pervasive immutability also makes actual parallelism easier.
With that many connections, another big issue is space usage -- keeping buffers, object overhead, etc. low per connection. Some languages fare far, far better than others here.
Yes I would say kqueue, the interface, is superior to epoll. Kqueue allows one to batch modify watcher states and to retrieve watcher states in a single system call. With epoll, you have to call a system call for every modification. Kqueue also allows one to watch for things like filesystem changes and process state changes, epoll is limited to socket/pipe I/O only. It's a shame that Linux doesn't support kqueue.
I fully agree that kqueue is awesome, but what specifically is broken on OSX? I've used in extensively on that platform, and haven't run into any showstoppers.
Yeah, the lack of support for TTYs can be annoying when writing a terminal application (a workaround for some cases is to use pipes), but it hardly qualifies as a significant problem for writing network applications.
Here's a more interesting bug in OSX: kqueue will sometimes return the wrong number for the listen backlog for a socket under high load.
How does it work? Do users provide a buffer and the kernel fills the buffer with data and notifies the user when ready?
That is more akin to AIO Linux system, then? Otherwise, epoll/poll/select just notifies users when data is available but the actual copy is done by the user. Surprisingly this can make a huge difference when streaming large amounts of data.
We have argued here before and I have gotten downvoted into oblivion for being pedantic and distinguishing between asynchronous IO and non-blocking IO but it looks like that extra user-space memcpy can make a huge difference.
I can't find anything about this now, just spent a good 20 minutes searching for it. I guess keywords kqueue, buffer request http are too generic in some sense. :-/
Anyway, the idea was to avoid context switches by waiting/parsing in kernel-side till there was enough data for the client to do something else that just another gimme_more_data()-call back to the kernel.
It could even be applied to other methods than kqueue, so perhaps I remember a bit wrong that this was just for kqueues.
The main advantage Erlang has over C/Python/Ruby/etc. is that asynchronous IO is the default throughout all its libraries, and it has a novel technique for handling errors. Its asynchronous design is ultimately about fault tolerance, not raw speed. Also, it can automatically and intelligently handle a lot of asynchronous control flow that node.js makes you manage by hand (which is so 70s!).
You can make event-driven asynchronous systems pretty smoothly in languages with first class coroutines/continuations (like Lua and Scheme), but most libraries aren't written with that use case in mind. Erlang's pervasive immutability also makes actual parallelism easier.
With that many connections, another big issue is space usage -- keeping buffers, object overhead, etc. low per connection. Some languages fare far, far better than others here.