Charles-François Natali added the comment: >> The transfer won't be faster mainly because it's really I/O bound. >> But it will use less CPU, only because you're making less syscalls. > > Have you actually measured this?
""" vanilla over Gb/s: real 0m9.035s user 0m0.523s sys 0m1.412s block-sendfile over Gb/s: real 0m9.683s user 0m0.253s sys 0m1.212s full-sendfile over Gb/s: real 0m9.014s user 0m0.059s sys 0m1.000s """ As you can see, the throughput doesn't vary (the difference in "real time" is just part of the variance). However, the CPU usage (user+sys) is less for block-sendfile than send loop, and less for full-sendfile than block-sendfile. """ vanilla over loopback: real 0m3.200s user 0m0.541s sys 0m0.702s block-sendfile over loopback: real 0m2.713s user 0m0.248s sys 0m0.197s full-sendfile over loopback: real 0m1.718s user 0m0.055s sys 0m0.082s """ Same thing for loopback, except that here, zero-copy makes a difference on the throughput because we're not I/O bound, but really CPU/memory bound (and here sendfile of the complete file really outperforms block-sendfile). I don't have access to a 10Gb/s network, but basic math hints that sendfile could make a difference on the overall throughput. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue13564> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
