[Top] [All Lists]

Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN)

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN)
From: David Lang <dlang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:57:42 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>, lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <14971.14511.765806.838208@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
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)

David Lang

On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, David S. Miller wrote:

> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:46:07 -0800 (PST)
> From: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: David Lang <dlang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>, lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>      "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN)
> David Lang writes:
>  > 1a. for webservers that server static content (and can therefor use
>  > sendfile) I don't see this as significant becouse as your tests have been
>  > showing, even a modest machine can saturate your network (unless you are
>  > useing gigE at which time it takes a skightly larger machine)
> Start using more than one interface, then it begins to become
> interesting.
>  > 1b. for webservers that are not primarily serving static content, they
>  > have to use write() for the output from cgi's, etc and therefor pay the
>  > performance penalty without being able to use sendfile() much to get the
>  > advantages. These machines are the ones that really need the performance
>  > as the cgi's take a significant amount of your cpu.
> CGI's can be cached btw if the implementation is clever (f.e. CGI
> tells the web server that if the file used as input to the CGI does
> not change then the output from the CGI will not change, meaning CGI
> output is based solely on input, therefore CGI output can be cached
> by the web server).
>  > 2. for other fileservers sendfile() sounds like it would be useful if the
>  > client is reading the entire file, but what about the cases where the
>  > client is reading part of the file, or is writing to the file. In both of
>  > these cases it seems that the fileserver is back to the write() penalty.
>  > does anyone have stats on the types of requests that fileservers are being
>  > asked for?
> It helps no matter what part of the file the client reads.
> sendfile() can be used on an arbitrary offset+len portion of
> a file, it is not limited to just sending an entire fire.
> Later,
> David S. Miller
> davem@xxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>