httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] lingering_close performance improvement
Date Sun, 09 Feb 1997 18:29:49 GMT
On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > 
> > This should make lingering_close as efficient as a NO_LINGCLOSE
> > without keepalives.  Note, however, that it is still necessary
> > to disable keepalive for OSes without FIN_WAIT_2 timeouts, since
> > it isn't possible for us to fix that browser bug.
> > 
> 
> It's a shame how buggy browsers can cause Apache to implement a
> function that slows performance and kills machines unless OS
> makers patch their stacks to enable a FIN_WAIT_2 timeout...
> Doesn't this seems like a LOT of trouble to go thru? We are
> jumping through hoops and making OS vendors do the same to work around
> buggy browsers... This, to me, seems incredibly warped.
> 
> If we disable lingering_close(), it puts the "blame" (I know,
> nasty word) back in the browsers court, and OS vendors don't need
> to patch their stacks at all. And all the cases which l_c() are
> supposed to help can be handled more effectively, and more logically,
> on the browser side anyway, it seems to me.

NO!

IT IS NOT JUST BUGGY BROWSERS.


Mime
View raw message