[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (fwd)]]
    On 20 Jan 2001, Kai Henningsen wrote:

    > (dean gaudet) wrote on 18.01.01 in <>:
    > > i'm pretty sure the actual use of pipelining is pretty disappointing.
    > > the work i did in apache preceded the widespread use of HTTP/1.1 and we
    > What widespread use of HTTP/1.1?
    > I justtried the following excercise:
    > Request a nonexistant page with HTTP/1.1 syntax.
    > a. Directly from Apache: I get a nice chunked HTTP/1.1 answer.
    > b. Via Squid: I get a plain HTTP/1.0 answer.
    > As long as not even Squid talks 1.1, how can we expect browsers to do it?
    > WebMUX? In a thousand years perhaps.

    what's the widespread use of ECN? or SACK when that was first put in?
    what about ipchains before 2.2 was released?

    why bother being the first to implement anything new, might as well wait
    for the commercial folks to put it into a product and spread it wide and
    far eh?

    i'm pretty sure i said that it was our (the apache group's) position that
    we wanted as perfect as possible of a pipelining implementation so that
    should someone finally do a client-side version then there wouldn't be
    apache bottlenecks in the way. i still think that's the right attitude.
    if we'd left the packet boundaries in there then there wouldn't even be
    motivation to bother doing a client-side pipelining implementation,
    there'd be little or no benefit.

    btw, HTTP/1.1 proxying is more challenging than HTTP/1.0 proxying which is
    probably why squid doesn't support it yet (nor does the apache proxy


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:17    [W:0.023 / U:8.348 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site