On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, David Lang wrote: > Thanks, that info on sendfile makes sense for the fileserver situation. > for webservers we will have to see (many/most CGI's look at stuff from the > client so I still have doubts as to how much use cacheing will be) CGI performance isn't directly affected by this - the whole point is to reduce the "cost" of handling static requests to zero (at least, as close as possible) leaving as much CPU as possible for the CGI to use. So sendfile won't help your CGI directly - it will just give your CGI more resources to work with. James. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly s... David S. Miller
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing ... Andrew Morton
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (noth... Trond Myklebust
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (noth... David Lang
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy ... David S. Miller
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly s... David Lang
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly s... David S. Miller
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly s... David Lang
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly s... Jeff Barrow
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly s... David S. Miller
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly s... James Sutherland
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with EC... Ion Badulescu
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do wi... Andrew Morton
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do wi... jamal
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to d... Ion Badulescu
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing ... jamal
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (noth... Ion Badulescu
- Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zeroc... jamal
- Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfi... Ingo Molnar
- Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfi... jamal
- Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfi... Ingo Molnar