Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:09:29 +0400 (MSD) From: Maxim Konovalov <maxim@FreeBSD.org> To: Attila Nagy <bra@fsn.hu> Cc: Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.org>, Yar Tikhiy <yar@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-all@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/libexec/ftpd ftpd.8 ftpd.c Message-ID: <20020809160204.Q41486-100000@news1.macomnet.ru> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0208091313140.4115-100000@scribble.fsn.hu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 13:25+0200, Aug 9, 2002, Attila Nagy wrote: > Hello, > > > Are these changes making it back to lukem to avoid lost functionality > > when we make the switch to lukemftpd? > I think before the switch could happen it is necessary to bring lukemftpd > at least for the same level of performance as the current ftpd. > Two examples: sendfile() support and resource usage. And I think they are > really important... > > sendfile(): I did "performance measurements" with four machines. One NFS > server (held the data), one FTP server (data over NFS) and two > machines with some wget -O /dev/null ftp://server/bigfile running. > With ftpd I got about 8 MB/s with 10-20% idle processor time, > with lukemftpd I got about 4-5 MB/s with 0% idle... > resource usage: without any hacks made, I could do about 750 concurrent > ftp connection to ftpd (started from inetd) without any hicks > and only about 200-270 to lukemftpd (I can't remember the exact > number) with some weird kernel messages. I can confirm practically the same perfomance differences between stock ftpd and lukemftpd on our production anon ftp server (250GB online storage, ~1000 ftp sessions, 30-50mbps) in "real" environment. -- Maxim Konovalov, maxim@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020809160204.Q41486-100000>