httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: more lingering_close... (tcpdump analysis)
Date Mon, 10 Feb 1997 01:30:19 GMT
Marc Slemko wrote:
> > Without l_c() the socket is not partly closed at all (we'll consider
> > a socket close atomic right now). Thus, without l_c() the above doesn't
> > come into play. The problem I think you are refering to is when
> You can consider it atomic all you want, but the fact is that it 
> isn't.  It is a four stage process.

I take it you are suggesting that we must take extreme care in following
each and every stage of the entire TCP/IP protocol during each stage
of Apache's performance.

If such a general protocol as HTTP/1.1 requires that servers and clients
worry about the actual timing involved in tcp/ip processing then
things have gotten very bad.

I for one would prefer seeing Apache as a usable server, one that does
not require reboots every 2 days or a tcp/ip implementation patch to
work and one that performs well, rather than a server that trys to
handle things that might happen in the small time intervals as
packets pass each other in the ether.

I'm having a beer :)
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services           |
                  "Not the Craw... the CRAW!"

View raw message