apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Bloom <rbl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: do we still want sendfile enabled with our default conf files?
Date Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:12:22 GMT
funny, I took the list of exceptions to be so large and hard to
maintain that it made more sense to go with Jeff's original idea of
just disabling sendfile by default unless a user specifically decided
to enable it.  I just had to debug a problem for a friend with
sendfile on Linux.  I don't know what caused the problem, but
disabling sendfile solved it immediately.  Seems to me that until our
sendfile support is better, we should err on the side of always
sending the data correctly instead of absolutely as fast as possible.

I would much rather have APR default to not using the native sendfile,
and only enable native sendfile when we have a lot of evidence that it
does work correctly.


On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:07:01 -0800, Justin Erenkrantz
<justin@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> --On Friday, March 18, 2005 5:59 AM -0500 Jeff Trawick <trawick@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ...snip, snip...
> > AIX:
> >
> > Doesn't really fail in the normal sense of not putting the right data
> > on the wire, but can trigger a kernel memory issue if some kernel
> > tuning is incorrect.  So always fail if the APR_SENDFILE_AUTODETECT is
> > on.  (This kernel tuning is irrelevant unless sendfile or more obscure
> > TCP usage is actually occuring, so the tuning issue has typically been
> > there all along without hurting anything.)
> Is the kernel turning incorrect on AIX by default?  Will this be fixed in some
> future releases?  You could do lots of things to corrupt your kernel by tuning
> in other ways - so unless this is by default, I can't see why we should block
> this.
> > ...snip, snip...
> +1 to this list of exceptions and adding a new flag called APR_SENDFILE_CHECK
> (or APR_SENDFILE_AUTODETECT) to apr_socket_sendfile.  -- justin

Ryan Bloom

View raw message