12 Feb
2013
12 Feb
'13
5:27 p.m.
Thanks, that's what I wanted to know. I did a few tests a while back using timerfd on micro-servers, but didn't notice any difference at all (with my scenarios). Out of curiosity, why is timerfd even in the source? Is there a specific use-case where it could perform better (embedded system, ...)? François. On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 10:21 -0600, Ken Rice wrote: > The default one is the best one on linux with kernels starting around > 2.6.32... Anything after that and you are good to go... > > The other timers are left around for other platforms > > K > > > > On 2/12/13 10:04 AM, "François Delawarde" <fdelawarde@wirelessmundi.com> > wrote: > > > Hello, > > Could someone knowing the different FS timers clarify the > > difference > between those: > > - default core softtimer > - core heavy timer (does > > this option still exists?) > - posix timer > - timerfd > > Can any of those provide a > > significant performance improvement, or is it > just not worth switching from > > the default? > > In any case, which one would be the recommended/best one under > > Linux > with a relatively recent kernel > > (>3.0)? > > Thanks, > François. > > > > ________________________________________________ > > _________________________ > Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting > > Services: > consulting@freeswitch.org > http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com > > FreeSW > > ITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication > > Server > http://www.cudatel.com > > Official FreeSWITCH > > Sites > http://www.freeswitch.org > http://wiki.freeswitch.org > http://www.cluecon. > > com > > FreeSWITCH-users mailing > > list > FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org > http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman > > /listinfo/freeswitch-users > UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/opt > > ions/freeswitch-users > http://www.freeswitch.org > >