Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 07:15:52 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/tools/tools/netrate/httpd httpd.c Message-ID: <20051006071440.F40058@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <20051006124123.Y87201@fledge.watson.org> References: <200510061028.j96ASVoL031977@repoman.freebsd.org> <20051006063636.S29769@odysseus.silby.com> <20051006124123.Y87201@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Robert Watson wrote: >> You can't use this to compare to 4.x then, FWIW. 4.x's sendfile always >> puts the headers in a separate packet, so in a large percentage of cases >> it's noticeably less efficient, network-traffic wise. > > It depends what you're trying to benchmark. If the goal is to illustrate the > performance changes as a result of on-going development, it's legitimate to > say that the changes in sendfile() are simply part of that process. I.e., > it's not cheating to have sendfile() improvements count towards overall > performance when evaluating overall performance. > > Robert N M Watson True, just don't start thinking that locking improvements are why you're seeing differences here. :) Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051006071440.F40058>