[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is a complete 'rewind' and 'restart' of Justin's
> original message (below) which kicked off the
> recent discussion.
>
> Since the options have narrowed to just 1... it's all
> simpler now.
>
> FWIW: +1 from me.
Some performance results with mod_gz are available at
http://webperf.org/a2/v25/
(no core dumps.. pages look ok on a real browser while running test)
I'm going to be re-running the tests for a longer period to see if
there are memory leaks (as well as quantify/purify on it next week)
brief summary:
* numbers are based on pages going through mod-include
* once of the runs looks a bit flaky.. and I'm re-running it
* cpu usage (USR) is VERY high (from 100 without gz to 500)
* page requests down 16% when using GZ
* page resposne times are slower with GZ, but have a lower deviation
Kevin..
the offer still stands... If you mail me your module, I'll run it through the same test
..Ian
>
> Yours...
> Kevin Kiley
>
> In a message dated 01-09-01 17:57:32 EDT, you write:
>
>
>>Ian has posted his mod_gz filter before, now I'd like to give it a +1.
>>
>> I told him I'd look at it a while ago, but never got a chance to do
>> so. So, I spent this morning cleaning up the configuration and a bit
>> of the code to fit our style (nothing major).
>>
>> I'd like to add this to the modules/filters directory (which seems
>> like the most appropriate place).
>>
>> Can I get two other +1s? I've reviewed the code and can get it
>> confirmed working with Netscape 4.77 and Mozilla 0.9.3 by adding the
>> following to httpd.conf:
>>
>> <IfModule mod_gz.c>
>> GZFilter On
>> AddOutputFilter GZ html
>> </IfModule>
>>
>> We could remove GZFilter as it really serves no purpose as well as the
>> text/html check in mod_gz. I'd like to commit something that is close
>> to what Ian originally submitted and then tweak it slightly.
>>
>> (Interesting to note that Netscape 4.77 does not allow you to view
>> the source of a gzipped'd entity while Mozilla shows you the
>> decompressed entity. Mozilla is getting cool...)
>>
>> I'm sure we can do more analysis of its performance (what the
>> appropriate deflation settings should be), but I'd really to get
>> this in first. =-) Justin.
>>
