it becomes necessary.
Why is calling mmap on a large file a bad thing?
Ryan
file_make_map() will not attempt to map more than MMAP_LIMIT bytes at a time
(4*1024*1024)
so this is not an issue for file_setaside(). If a file exceeds this limit, it
will be
dup'ed.
I have not had much time to do any
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
The setaside() could be called on *really* large files. Calling mmap could
be a very bad thing. Just dup the FILE bucket and leave it at that. The
decision to do the mmap can/should come when it becomes necessary.
Okay, I'll change file_setaside() so
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 11:29:32AM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Why? Don't we need to create a duplicate file handle? What am I
missing? -- justin
Not for file_setaside() we don't. All file_setaside() cares about is that
the apr_file_t
(2) Why should file_setaside mmap the file? I'd think that we'd want to
keep it as a file as long as possible to make it easier to use
sendfile()... what am I missing?
We are going to be copying something. I figured mmap'ing the file would
be a bit better, because we could write
I have a few questions about file_setaside. I'm pasting the function in
here for easy reference.
--
static apr_status_t file_setaside(apr_bucket *data, apr_pool_t *pool)
{
apr_bucket_file *a = data-data;
apr_file_t *fd
