In message <[email protected]>, jdzstz writes: > - Changes that fixes varnishtest problems (timeouts and path >problems): >https://www.varnish-cache.org/trac/attachment/wiki/VarnishOnCygwinWindows/varnish-3.0.5-cygwin_varnishtest.patch
This patch kind of hint that Varnish@Cygwin must suck pretty badly performance wise ? Is that because of the hardware you run it on, or is it chronic ? > - Changes that fixes some problems with varnishd and tcp_nodelay problems: >https://www.varnish-cache.org/trac/attachment/wiki/VarnishOnCygwinWindows/varnish-3.0.5-cygwin_varnishd.patch Where on Earth does the idea that TCP_NODELAY takes a bool argument come from ? Are you sure about this ? Don't let the canonical decriptions mention about "The boolean option TCP_NODELAY [...]" confuse you: It still takes an int argument any place I have ever seen it. If the Cygwin crew made it take a bool, they're portability-mororns. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [email protected] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
