From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 22 19:37:17 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C76181065678 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:37:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B1A08FC0A for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:37:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from phobos.samsco.home (phobos.samsco.home [192.168.254.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m3MJbAii079083; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:37:11 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <480E3E66.3000303@samsco.org> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:37:10 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.13) Gecko/20080313 SeaMonkey/1.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Poul-Henning Kamp References: <8481.1208889581@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <8481.1208889581@critter.freebsd.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, AWL autolearn=ham version=3.1.8 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Jille Subject: Re: Http Accept filters (accf_http) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:37:17 -0000 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <480E307B.901@quis.cx>, Jille writes: >> Hello, >> >> I've read about accf_http(9) some time ago, and I was wondering about >> it's performance. >> Does it increase performance on all workloads ? >> (I'm intrested in the improvements for a PHP-apache-webserver with about >> 50 request/second average.) > > I doubt you will see measurable performance difference from using > request filters at such low traffic. > The accept filters do reduce service latency and probably have a small benefit in CPU utilization. 50 requests/sec is probably enough to see a benefit for something like PHP or PERL. It definitely won't hurt, and even if there's no measurable benefit now, it'll help prepare you for scaling in the future. Scott