Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:44:44 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/tools/tools/netrate/httpd httpd.c Message-ID: <20051006124123.Y87201@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20051006063636.S29769@odysseus.silby.com> References: <200510061028.j96ASVoL031977@repoman.freebsd.org> <20051006063636.S29769@odysseus.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Mike Silbersack wrote: >> Modified files: >> tools/tools/netrate/httpd httpd.c >> Log: >> Improve realism of benchmark httpd: return some HTTP headers as part >> of the sendfile() system call. >> >> Revision Changes Path >> 1.2 +24 -1 src/tools/tools/netrate/httpd/httpd.c > > You can't use this to compare to 4.x then, FWIW. 4.x's sendfile always > puts the headers in a separate packet, so in a large percentage of cases > it's noticeably less efficient, network-traffic wise. It depends what you're trying to benchmark. If the goal is to illustrate the performance changes as a result of on-going development, it's legitimate to say that the changes in sendfile() are simply part of that process. I.e., it's not cheating to have sendfile() improvements count towards overall performance when evaluating overall performance. Robert N M Watson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051006124123.Y87201>