> Okay. So send file is bad and has been removed. Correct me if Iam wrong , > but if you have apache installed and proxying through it, you dont really > need sendfile . is that assumption correct?
Depends on how you're proxying I think... If you pass everything to mongrel, well, everything will get handled by mongrel. If you hadd those re-write rules that check file existence thatn probably not as important. We're running 0.3.13 on centos with sendfile doing a *lot* of traffic, and not seeing any issues... although I wouldn't be surprised if sendfile was never being activated as we've got those rewrite rules in place for existing files... -philip > > Sunder > > On 8/3/06, Coda Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 8/3/06, Zed Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > You may want to nudge Coda to update his post [1] - I'd never heard of >> > > sendfile until I read that, and it's often referred to in the >> > > community. >> > > >> > > [1] >> http://blog.codahale.com/2006/06/19/time-for-a-grown-up-server-rails-mongrel-apache-capistrano-and-you/ >> > >> > Thanks, contacted him. That seems to be the source. >> >> Nudged! >> >> Sorry for the problems--I figured it was a decent CYA maneuver if my >> proxying config let stuff through (which it did, at first), but I >> haven't experienced any problems with it. Either way, my post has been >> updated with the current recommendation to stay the hell away from >> sendfile. >> >> Thanks for the heads-up, Zed. >> >> -- >> Coda Hale >> http://blog.codahale.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Mongrel-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users >> > _______________________________________________ Mongrel-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
