On Aug 25, 2011, at 2:27 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > > On 25 Aug 2011, at 17:45, Greg Ames wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >> Now that the memory utilz is being fixed, we need to determine >> what sort of usage we want to allow… I'm guessing that people >> are ok with http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/311 >> as the guiding spec? >> >> I'm no longer convinced that we *need* to merge/optimize the Range header. >> Stefan's fix to the brigade plumbing has converted O(N^2) memory + CPU use >> into something scalable. > > Same feeling here. BUT that is based on the FreeBSD platform I care about. > And we have noticed earlier that Ubuntu (which its default commit pattern in > the vm) behaves very differently. > > So is it fair to assume this reasoning holds across the board -- or should we > get some very explicit +1's on this appraoch from key linux, windows and what > not users ? >
I just need to create and connect some runtime config directives for the Range stuff and I think we should be mostly complete ;)
