Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 86896 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2005 05:10:13 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Mar 2005 05:10:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 94604 invoked by uid 500); 18 Mar 2005 20:04:11 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 94230 invoked by uid 500); 18 Mar 2005 20:04:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 94203 invoked by uid 99); 18 Mar 2005 20:04:09 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from castlerea.stdlib.net (HELO castlerea.stdlib.net) (80.68.89.152) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:04:07 -0800 Received: from colmmacc by castlerea.stdlib.net with local (Exim 4.41) id 1DCNhU-0001oU-FG; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:04:04 +0000 Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:04:04 +0000 From: Colm MacCarthaigh To: Justin Erenkrantz Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org, dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: do we still want sendfile enabled with our default conf files? Message-ID: <20050318200404.GB6748@castlerea.stdlib.net.> Reply-To: colm@stdlib.net References: <1f1d98205031808126698802b@mail.gmail.com> <6A59038878FF133648C83BDC@[10.0.1.81]> <20050318163408.GA5352@castlerea.stdlib.net.> <91AF42FAD9551FF95D46DE21@[10.0.1.81]> <20050318171817.GA5562@castlerea.stdlib.net.> <89A562E993DB0B79130F4B3D@[10.0.1.81]> <20050318194400.GA6560@castlerea.stdlib.net.> <95838CF29ECC66A273CDBF1A@[10.0.1.81]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <95838CF29ECC66A273CDBF1A@[10.0.1.81]> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:51:22AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > --On Friday, March 18, 2005 7:44 PM +0000 Colm MacCarthaigh > wrote: > >>either lacklist or whitelist fstypes per OS, I don't much care. And, we > >>can check for IPv6 sockets on Linux. > > > >This is still unfair on admins. Some network cards work fine, why > >shouldn't their owners get the benfits of sendfile? > > Those cases they can explicitly use 'EnableSendfile on'. IIRC, you're the > one who said most network cards are broken with IPv6 and sendfile on Linux. If they can still use "EnableSendfile On", then I've nothing to argue about. -- Colm MacC�rthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net