In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ei rik_=D8verby?= writes:
>Hi, > >is this still a problem? Yes, sendfile is not currently usable because it does not tell us when it is _really_ done with the data we send, so it can run afoul of our reuse of the memory for short lived objects. I have not spent any time on it, as the performance hit from using writev(2) seems to be trivial if one has plenty of RAM and because the real fix for the sendfile issue is likely to mean a redefinition of the sendfile system call. Poul-Henning >> I've nailed three different operating system kernels as having >> sendfile(2) issues today, so I would advice all of you to >> disable sendfile to avoid the various problems we've seen. >> >> The easiest way is to specify >> >> -p sendfile_threshold=-1 >> >> to varnishd, or by using the CLI: >> >> param.set sendfile_threshold -1 -- 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-misc mailing list [email protected] http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
