We do not need it, using sendfile as etc has its own limitations, only
for static files, no templates and other dynamic stuff. For only static
files lighttpd is fine and it is more effective to use it instead of
using naviserver
Stephen Deasey wrote:
On 1/23/07, Zoran Vasiljevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am 23.01.2007 um 17:14 schrieb Vlad Seryakov:
and lighttpd also uses sendfile which is faster than user-spave
read-send operation fastpath uses
There you go. They do it all in kernel. I guess this can't be beat.
Anyways, it is good to know where we stand.
I think this may only apply to larger files, and some old benchmarks I
saw showed it was actualy slower for smaller files. Not that this
isn't important, but it's not the second coming... :-)
For sendfile() to work we need to figure out the new driver callback
interface so we can add a Sendfile() callback. Otherwise, large file
downloads will break with SSL and other socket drivers.
There's stuff about the driver interface in the archives...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
naviserver-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/naviserver-devel
--
Vlad Seryakov
571 262-8608 office
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.crystalballinc.com/vlad/
