http://people.freebsd.org/~alfred/thttpd/thttpd-sendfile-acceptfilter.diff
foo. :)
--
-Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
http://www.egr.unlv.edu/~slumos/on-netbsd.html
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
* Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010420 02:47] wrote:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~alfred/thttpd/thttpd-sendfile-acceptfilter.diff
>
> foo. :)
First off the initial patch I put up was broken, but it now seems to
work, so if you've downloaded it you might want to make sure you got
the righ
> Second, it looks like there's a few things in thttpd that could be
> optimized further.
...
> .) pre-forking, this would help with stalling on disk IO.
Since the author of thttpd makes a point of *not* using pre-forking (and
thttpd still being very fast), I'm not sure that pre-forking patches
w
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010420 02:47] wrote:
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~alfred/thttpd/thttpd-sendfile-acceptfilter.diff
> >
> > foo. :)
>
> First off the initial patch I put up was broken, but it now seems to
> work, so if you'v
cc'd the author...
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010420 05:11] wrote:
> > Second, it looks like there's a few things in thttpd that could be
> > optimized further.
> ...
> > .) pre-forking, this would help with stalling on disk IO.
>
> Since the author of thttpd makes a point of *not*
The accept-filters change is already on my short list to add. I'll
probably use your version.
sendfile() probably doesn't make sense in a non-blocking server - wouldn't
it block until the entire file is sent? I do plan to use it in my
other server mini_httpd.
As for making thttpd use multiple
* Jef Poskanzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010420 09:11] wrote:
> The accept-filters change is already on my short list to add. I'll
> probably use your version.
>
> sendfile() probably doesn't make sense in a non-blocking server - wouldn't
> it block until the entire file is sent? I do plan to use i
>> sendfile() probably doesn't make sense in a non-blocking server - wouldn't
>> it block until the entire file is sent? I do plan to use it in my
>> other server mini_httpd.
>
>Yes and no, the sendfile can block until all the file is sent,
>however if the socket is in non-block mode it will abor
* Zach Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010421 06:47] wrote:
> [apologies for missing the original post and replying to a reply..]
>
> > > - A round-robin token-passing scheme to determine which process gets
> > > to do the accept(). Turns out it's very bad to just have all the
> > > process
* Zach Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010421 08:03] wrote:
> > > or so the numbers have lead me to beleive. Its still an annoying
> > > design, but has someone come up with real numbers to show that accept()
> > > hurding is a problem for waiters that do real work after accept() ?
> >
> > Accept her
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 04:44:02AM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> .) kqueue.
http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/thttpd-2.19+kq.patch
Kris
PGP signature
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 07:42:26PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 03:19:02PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/thttpd-2.19+kq.patch
> >
> > Commit them to the port! :-)
>
> Yeah, I should. I sho
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 07:42:26PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 03:19:02PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/thttpd-2.19+kq.patch
>
> Commit them to the port! :-)
Yeah, I should. I should also submit them back to the author :-)
Kris
PGP s
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 03:19:02PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/thttpd-2.19+kq.patch
Commit them to the port! :-)
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 08:55:55PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/thttpd-2.19+kq.patch
>> Commit them to the port! :-)
> Yeah, I should. I should also submit them back to the author :-)
And the poor port maintainer for review first please. :-)
But anyway, thttpd
Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The easiest way would be to have thttpd fork after listening a
>pre-determined amount of servers, then they'll all compete calling
>accept() to grab connections.
This is exactly what we did at Demon, which was for a long time
the largest thttpd insta
16 matches
Mail list logo
