httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Burry <dbu...@tagnet.org>
Subject Re: [STATUS] (httpd-2.0) Wed Oct 23 23:45:19 EDT 2002
Date Fri, 25 Oct 2002 02:45:10 GMT
At 08:45 PM 10/24/2002 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>At 08:40 PM 10/24/2002, Bojan Smojver wrote:
>>Quoting David Burry <dburry@tagnet.org>:
>>
>>> Excellent!  I will perform some tests with that when I get a chance!  You
>>> managed to get it working without breaking pipelining even?  That's awesome!
>>
>>That's what I *think*, which has been known to deviate from the truth, from time
>>to time. However, I appreciate all input, especially results of the actual tests.
>
>  I recall you had tested a ton of 'little files' pipelined.
>
>  What might be more interesting is a 100MB download (over a fast pipe)
>which is entirely 'sendfile'd out.  Apache would consider itself done with
>the request long before it was finished with the connection.


In case someone else wants to independently verify it...

The exact test I was doing was with a 70+ meg .tar.gz file both over a 100mbit ethernet and
a 1.5mbit DSL, starting and canceling it multiple times in Windoze Internet Explorer 5 or
6 (which appears to effectively use byte range requests for subsequent tries, by the way)
and monitoring what was logged each time.  This test isn't super precise on the byte count
(I did not bother to go comb my IE cache) but it sure is obvious when it consistently logs
the whole file size and I only received a small fraction according to the IE progress bar...
 Also looking at the byte range requests with %{Range}i makes it obvious how much IE received
previously on each subsequent try (IE appears to only request the part of the file it hasn't
cached yet).

I was thinking of writing a script that did this in a more automated fashion... perhaps contributing
a test to the apache test suite when I figure that thing out... ;o)

Dave



Mime
View raw message