httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rici Lake <>
Subject Re: do we still want sendfile enabled with our default conf files?
Date Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:48:01 GMT

What's the performance problem?

There was someone on #apache yesterday who claimed to experience the 
following problem: On a local switched network, Apache2 on Win2K3 
transferred at 800kbps, while IIS on the same box transferred at 
8-11mbps. When he replaced the cable to the server with a shorter one, 
Apache speeded up to 4 mpbs but IIS still ran at full speed. He tried 
it with both Windows and Mac OS X clients, and experienced the same 

Could this be related to sendfile?


On 17-Mar-05, at 11:12 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote:

> Joshua Slive wrote:
>> Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>> IMHO, all default conf files except for highperformance[-std].conf
>>> should have the "EnableSendfile off" directive uncommented, under the
>>> theory that people who want the extra performance can take an action
>>> to re-enable sendfile and then pay attention to the web server
>>> behavior afterwards but people who just want the darn thing to work
>>> shouldn't be bothered.  Some percentage of the latter group will have
>>> problems they are ill-equipped to handle, because some feature that 
>>> is
>>> not important to them is enabled.
>>> We've discussed this before and nothing ever happened.  I'm willing 
>>> to
>>> bet that the experiences of a few more unlucky users since the last
>>> discussion may have shifted the balance.  Comments?
>> +1, as before.
>>  From the users' perspective, sendfile results in unexplained 
>> corruption or uninterpretable error messages pretty much any time a 
>> network filesystem is used to host content (and random other times on 
>> win32).
> Hey Joshua,
> Guess I've not been paying attention... what type of problems have you 
> seen with sendfile (TransmitFile) on Win32?  We do have a performance 
> problem (will leave out details unless your interested) but I was not 
> aware of corruption problems...
> Bill

View raw message