From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Message-Id: <199702091326.IAA13675@shado.jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lingering_close performance improvement
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 08:26:37 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <9702082330.aa22224@paris.ics.uci.edu> from "Roy T. Fielding" at
 Feb 8, 97 11:30:45 pm
Content-Type: text
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

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.
-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
                  "Not the Craw... the CRAW!"