Here we are. TCP and NFS/UDP over lo. Machine is a dual-PII. I didn't bother running CPU utilisation testing while benchmarking loopback, although this may be of some interest for SMP. I just looked
This is normal. The server doesn't do zero copy reads, but instead copies from the page cache into an NFS-specific buffer using register on NFS performance (other than on CPU use as has been mention
I have been watching this thread with interest for a while now, but am wondering about the real-world use of this, given the performance penalty for write() As I see it there are two basic cases you
Start using more than one interface, then it begins to become interesting. 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
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 cac
Also note that the decreased CPU utilization resulting from zerocopy sendfile leaves more CPU available for CGI execution. This was a point I forgot to make. Later, David S. Miller davem@xxxxxxxxxx
right, assuming that there is enough sendfile() benifit to overcome the write() penalty from the stuff that can't be cached or sent from a file. my question was basicly are there enough places where
Let's see.... all the work being done for clustering would definitely benefit... all the static images on your webserver--and static images makes up most of the bandwidth from web servers (images, ac
There are non-performance issues as well (really, all of these points have been mentioned in this thread btw). One is that since paged SKBs use only single-order page allocations, the memory allocati
CGI performance isn't directly affected by this - the whole point is to reduce the "cost" of handling static requests to zero (at least, as close as possible) leaving as much CPU as possible for the