On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:47:49 -0800 Erik Hetzner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:16:44 -0800, > Erik Hetzner wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > The following change to Mongrel::HttpRequest: > > […] > > > seems to work for me, and vastly improves the speed of the body > > processing (quick tests reveal that using IO#read takes about 1 min 40 > > secs. and using Socket#recv takes about 9 secs on an 8.5 mb file). I > > have been having trouble discovering the difference between read & > > recv (I am not a socket developer by any means). Can anybody tell me > > what sort of safety one loses by doing this with recv instead of read? > > Thanks. > > As a followup, in case it wasn’t obvious, I was far off base here. I > should have realized that something was wrong with such horrible > transfer speeds. While it still seems using recv instead of read, and, > conversely, send instead of write gives you a very slight speedup, > most of my problem here was a runaway while loop in another thread > (while true do; end seems to take up a lot of time). It is interesting, but I believe that I originally used recv and it had some problems when it came time to actually cooperate with other threads doing read. Could be totally bogus fantasy memory though, but I also know there's only a few places where recv is faster, as you found. -- Zed A. Shaw, MUDCRAP-CE Master Black Belt Sifu http://www.zedshaw.com/ http://www.awprofessional.com/title/0321483502 -- The Mongrel Book http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/ http://www.lingr.com/room/3yXhqKbfPy8 -- Come get help. _______________________________________________ Mongrel-users mailing list Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
