From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 23 14:46:12 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 4DA49106566B for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:46:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sheepkiller@cultdeadsheep.org) Received: from goofy.cultdeadsheep.org (36-156.252-81.static-ip.oleane.fr [81.252.156.36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 60C678FC1C for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:46:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sheepkiller@cultdeadsheep.org) Received: (qmail 94418 invoked by uid 1000); 23 Apr 2008 16:19:29 +0200 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:19:29 +0200 From: Clement Laforet To: Ivan Voras Message-ID: <20080423141929.GA61109@goofy.cultdeadsheep.org> References: <8481.1208889581@critter.freebsd.dk> <480E3E66.3000303@samsco.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org 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: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:46:12 -0000 --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:34:14PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote: > Scott Long wrote: > >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= =20 > >>>it's performance. > >>>Does it increase performance on all workloads ? > >>>(I'm intrested in the improvements for a PHP-apache-webserver with=20 > >>>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. >=20 > Does anyone know why accf_accept is disabled by default in the ports'=20 > stock Apache 2.2 (it's disabled in the default config files)? I thought= =20 > it was because it was dangerous or flawed for some reason, though (at=20 > least for light loads comparable to those of OP) it seems to work fine. There's not technical reason actually. It's an "opt-in" feature ;-) In the early 2.2.x times, httpd used to print a warning when accf_http=20 is disabled. It was, of course, just a matter of loglevel. apache ran=20 perfectly fine, but a warning got printed. Some users started=20 complaining about how my port was broken, sometimes in very rude=20 manner. So I decided to explicilty disable AcceptFilter unless=20 apache22_http_accept_enable is set to "YES" in /etc/rc.conf. clem --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFID0VwsRhfjwcjuh0RAhV6AKC0OdQMC+8MyYDIvNwcnJErQUPkfgCeL3u2 qoeEXJAGT67Pipq9Jsg/vPU= =VUZr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU--