httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael.Schro...@telekurs.de
Subject Apache 2.1 docs: perf-tuning.xml (questions)
Date Fri, 16 Jan 2004 20:40:37 GMT

> In situations where Apache 2.0 can ignore the contents of the file
> to be delivered -- for example, when serving static file content --
> it normally uses the kernel sendfile support the file
> if the OS supports the sendfile(2) operation.

I am not sure how to read the last two lines of this sentence.
Isn't there a word missing or something like that?
(Perhaps insert "for" after the first "support", and then
replace "the" by "this"?)

> "Some architectures do not have any locking choice made,"

I would like to understand why this is so.
I guess what this line actually wanted to say would be
"Some architectures don't provide any locking mechanisms to
choose from" - right?

> The directive AcceptMutex can be used to change the selected mutex
> implementation at run-time.

I am not really happy about this wording. ("At runtime" might
give you the impression that one need not even stop/restart
Apache to change this behaviour.)
I understand that this line means "without recompiling", but
then the wording might something like "via configuration".

> This latency is probably a wash on long haul lines,

I find this difficult to understand & translate.
Do I guess correctly that "be a wash" means "may be neglected
/ irrelevant"?

> If you want to override the single socket serialization you can
> define SINGLE_LISTEN_UNSERIALIZED_ACCEPT

The document uses "define" in a tricky way here, as verb of
the sentence and as reference to the <code>#define</code>
concept from the C programming language.
Expressing this in any other language might be difficult.

> For those operating systems that we either have access to, or
> have been given detailed ports for,

The wording of "ports" might be ambiguous/misleading here.
Am I correct to assume we aren't talking about something
like a "TCP/IP port" (as Jobst translated this), but about
"the scoreboard implementation being ported/adapted to a
specific platform"?

>  The on-disk file is not only slow, but it is unreliable

What you actually mean would be "Using the on-disk file
method is...". I might guess this in the English version,
but this line is likely to cause problems for translators.

> Traces of non-static requests or requests with content negotiation
> look wildly different (and quite ugly in some cases).

I guess "ugly" in this case would mean something like
"confusing", i. e. much more system calls and more difficult
to understand? You might want to write it this way as to
make translation easier here.

Regards, Michael


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org


Mime
View raw message