Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:282 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 37906 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 21:54:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO asuka.prohost.org) (24.101.65.70) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 21:54:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 21426 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 16:54:52 -0000 Received: from rei.nerv (HELO dummy.com) (rei@192.168.1.1) by asuka.nerv with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 16:54:52 -0000 Reply-To: ilia@prohost.org To: "lists@holsman.net" , internals@lists.php.net Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:55:15 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <200303251611.12012.ilia@prohost.org> <3E80CD8D.7080505@holsman.net> In-Reply-To: <3E80CD8D.7080505@holsman.net> Organization: Prohost.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <200303251655.15492.ilia@prohost.org> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Preliminary Apache 2 benchmarks From: ilia@prohost.org ("Ilia A.") On March 25, 2003 04:43 pm, lists@holsman.net wrote: > resend due to 30k issue. > > > Attached is the patch (ap2.txt) that prevents AP2 handler from constantly > > flushing the data as soon as it is passed. As you can see in the > > benchmarks this more the doubles the performance when many writes occur. > > I am hoping Ian can explain the need for this flush, since without it the > > code would be clearly faster. > > in the general (like 99.9%) of the case you don't need to flush. > I think disabling it will be a good thing. We do give the ability to the user to force a flush is they so desire, so I think disabling the automatic flushing of data would be a good idea especially since performance benefits are so significant. > the original version I committed actually waited until the entire page was > parsed before sending anything up the chain. > > this is slightly different to what it currently does, and I'll try to see > if I can see a difference in this approach (compared to sending the buckets > up the filter chain) > > if there is a difference, I'll add a new directive to buffer the response > up. > Ok, let me know what you tests end up showing, I'd definately like to see some sort of a solution for this issue appear in the upcomming 4.3.2 release. Ilia