Remy Maucherat wrote
> After testing and benching, implementing buffering at the lower layer is
> much better, as it avoids introducing complexity in all the levels of
> processing, and is more powerful. The performance impact of the new
> behavior is minimal (using a worst case scenario of a static file, the
> difference is about 2-3%).
> I believe the updated implementation will meet your needs.
> What's the most optimal packet size overall, BTW ? 1500 ?
> Remy

Thanks, Remy - I ran my original test again with your new buffered
connector.  My test page now loads using only 5 packets (same as Apache).
The low level buffereing is much cleaner than the approach I was suggesting.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to