Hi all, serving huge files through cgit does not really play well with lighttpd -- lighty's RAM consumption skyrockets, because it seems to have to load the file into memory and is not freeing it thereafter, especially with multiple concurrent requests.
Fortunately a couple of servers implement the X-Sendfile extension (or synonyms thereof) that allow to pass a path to the webserver which then serves it directly like every other static file. Lighty even implements an X-Sendfile2 extension that enables us to pass a _range_ of a file to serve, which is ideal to serve cgit cache files directly. So quite some time ago I wrote a patch for cgit that uses X-Sendfile2. As the patch was clumsy and hard to understand, I tried to rewrite it, but then noticed that I was doing a wrong thing all along: If I understood the caching code correctly (which I most likely haven't) this might fail, as the cache file to serve might be replaced by some new content (read: might even be some complete other page) inbetween sending the path to the server and the server sending the file. So my questions are: a) Is it possible to use X-Sendfile2 with the current cache implementation? b) If not: Is it worthwhile to figure out a new scheme to do so, i.e. where it can be guaranteed that a cache file is not altered between sending the response and the server serving it? c) If yes: Should one remove the cache-key from the file, s.t. one can use "normal" X-Sendfile to serve the file as-is? My current view is pessimistic, because from my understanding the answers are: a) no, there is no lock on simple serving b) no, because if there were a lock, there would be no possibility to remove it, as a CGI application does not get feedback from the server (a 'request-handled' message) I'd be very glad if anyone could tell me I'm wrong :) Regards, René _______________________________________________ cgit mailing list cgit@hjemli.net http://hjemli.net/mailman/listinfo/cgit