On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 12:09:40PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> Pay attention to what that message says please. It says "The filter
> should always be in the stack, and it should always collect
> information." It doesn't say "The filter should always be touching the
> C-L for the response." We us
On Sat, 2002-07-06 at 12:09, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 08:25:18AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > > > From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Of course, in the common case of a static file with no filte
On Sat, 2002-07-06 at 12:09, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 08:25:18AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > > > From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Of course, in the common case of a static file with no filte
> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 08:25:18AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > > From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Of course, in the common case of a static file with no filters, we
> > > already know the content-length (default han
On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 08:25:18AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Of course, in the common case of a static file with no filters, we
> > already know the content-length (default handler sets it).
> >
> > IIRC, I've brought up skipping the C-L f
> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 01:03:42AM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
> > As it's currently implemented, the C-L filter is trying to compute
> > the C-L on everything by default. It only gives up in a few cases:
>
> Of course, in the common case of
On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 01:03:42AM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
> As it's currently implemented, the C-L filter is trying to compute
> the C-L on everything by default. It only gives up in a few cases:
Of course, in the common case of a static file with no filters, we
already know the content-length
On Wed, 2002-07-03 at 20:07, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > From: Brian Pane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > On Wed, 2002-07-03 at 15:26, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > > How big a problem is this really? Most of the time, the
> content-length
> > > filter isn't supposed to actually buffer the brigade. It sho
> From: Brian Pane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> On Wed, 2002-07-03 at 15:26, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > How big a problem is this really? Most of the time, the
content-length
> > filter isn't supposed to actually buffer the brigade. It should
only be
> > doing the buffering if we are doing a keepa
On Wed, 2002-07-03 at 15:26, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> How big a problem is this really? Most of the time, the content-length
> filter isn't supposed to actually buffer the brigade. It should only be
> doing the buffering if we are doing a keepalive request and we can't do
> chunking.
I'm seeing the
OTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 11:44 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: conserving file descriptors vs. ap_save_brigade()
>
> I'm working on a fix to keep file buckets from being mmaped when
> they're set aside. (The motivation for this is to eliminate the
&g
I'm working on a fix to keep file buckets from being mmaped when
they're set aside. (The motivation for this is to eliminate the
bogus mmap+memcpy+munmap that happens when a client requests a
file smaller than 8KB over a keep-alive connection.)
The biggest problem I've found is that the scalabil
12 matches
Mail list logo
