Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.8.4/V2.0) id BAA14635; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 01:38:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinlark.arctic.org by taz.hyperreal.com (8.8.4/V2.0) with SMTP id BAA14630; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 01:38:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 18972 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jan 1997 09:37:19 -0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 01:37:19 -0800 (PST) From: Dean Gaudet To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Subject: Re: pipelining and chunking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com I'm pretty sure he removed the bflush(). I actually had to go through that step (or the converse, adding bflush) at some point while debugging it. Dean On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Alexei Kosut wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Dean Gaudet wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Alexei Kosut wrote: > > > I'm still a bit unclear on this; on > > > http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Protocols/HTTP/Performance/Apache.html, it > > > says "a multiplum of 4 bytes are lost". You are now saying that those > > > bytes are in fact not lost, but simply not read by libwww due to it > > > being buggy? > > > > That appears to be the case. I didn't observe any lost data on the wire. > > Henrik is looking into libwww now. He seems to think it's libwww as well. > > Okay; I'm happy now, then. > > But a question: The version of Apache (1.2b1) flushed after each > response was sent. It seems unlikely then that a packet would have > ended with just the first few bytes of the next response; it would > have only had those few bytes in it. Did Henrik remove the bflush() > to do his test, or is this one of those random things? > > -- > ________________________________________________________________________ > Alexei Kosut The Apache HTTP Server > URL: http://www.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us/~akosut/ http://www.apache.org/ > >