Alexandru Iancu <[email protected]> writes: > On the other hand, as I said in that paper, up until now, optimizations were > made > in application software like this sendfile OS feature while using this new > transport > we are trying to improve the performance other places: at transport layer.
Yes but SCTP can take advantage from the sendfile optimization too in the same way TCP does. Without sendfile you have (assuming the file is not cached): file system -> kernel space -> user space -> network. with sendfile it is: file system -> kernel space -> network. > On the other hand this feature is marginal to our server because it's not > available on > windows and used just by HTTP(S). I think FTP could use it too, are there any reason to don't use it? > Did you measure into an real world environment how myserver's performs > using > sendfile vs. not using this feature? Or do you know studies that show how > much > gain ones can have using sendfile instead read/send? Because I think in > Internet > the real server's botleneck is not the processor's power but the > number of connections > the server(as a whole: user and kernel spaces) can handle concurrently. > SCTP helps me to handle more connections concurrently. I don't have numbers too but when I started to use sendfile for HTTP I saw big differences. > So, I'm optimistic about using SCTP even without sendfile. Thought it can be better to have both :) Have you already wrote any test case for SCTP that I can use as starting point? Thanks, Giuseppe
