2011/9/7 Daniel Stenberg <dan...@haxx.se> > On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, liuzl wrote: > I think most applications will use small buffers. Counted in kilobytes, and > then the "times four" makes more sense. I think we should at least cap the > read-ahead to a maximum amount. Probably set to the maximum window size we > will set, which current I believe is 3932160 bytes (64K * 60). Possibly even > smaller than so. > > I would also not mind if we provide a way for the application to control > the read-ahead amount/behavior somewhat so that it can actually tweak it for > its particular use case. > > Agree. When transfer big file, i split it into several blocks and transfered in several sftp connections at the same time. Each connection will just download it's own block,the read-ahead behavior will cross the blocks eachother and waste network traffic.
> > 2,caller know the file size, and the incoming buffer size is not bigger >> than the real file size. >> > > In Alexander's case he mentioned the reading of a file that grows over time > (/dev/random style or just a log file growing rapidly). Limiting sftp > reading to a size known before-hand would change our behaviour with such > files. > Yes, that is a special occasion unavoidable. > > -- > > / daniel.haxx.se > > ______________________________**_________________ > libssh2-devel > http://cool.haxx.se/cgi-bin/**mailman/listinfo/libssh2-devel<http://cool.haxx.se/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libssh2-devel> >
_______________________________________________ libssh2-devel http://cool.haxx.se/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libssh2-devel
