Steve Appling wrote:
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 ?

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.

I experimented both solutions, and the low level buffering ended up being the best. I thought it would have a performance impact, but it is actually totally insignificant (I did try the worst case - serving a static file, which doesn't need buffering in the first place). It was also very easy to implement using a ByteChunk.


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

Reply via email to