From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Aug 16 14:18:45 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA25608 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 14:18:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA25603 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 14:18:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA26946; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 14:16:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) To: Andre Oppermann cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sendfile() API? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 16 Aug 1998 20:47:09 +0200." <35D7292D.7FBBA95@pipeline.ch> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 14:16:24 -0700 Message-ID: <26941.903302184@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > They state sendfile() gives excellent Webserver performace, isn't that > somthing for FreeBSD? Predicated on two things, both of which I raised at the Apache core developers meeting recently: 1. A reasonable (e.g. not HP/UX's) API is established by those who're going to use it so that we know just what precisely it is we're supposed to implement. 2. Some sort of benchmark suite is developed to show when and where this *actually helps* so that we can justify the addition of sendfile() to FreeBSD (or any other OS, for that matter). I'm still waiting for either of those things to happen, and until then it's a reasonable assumption that demand is just not that significant yet. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message