Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:18:54 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Paul Saab <paul@mu.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: MORE: Re: kblob discussion. Message-ID: <20000621121854.W17420@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <20000620123206.A56823@elvis.mu.org>; from paul@mu.org on Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 12:32:06PM -0700 References: <20000619111309.E26801@fw.wintelcom.net> <xzpk8fktu2x.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <20000620093526.Q17420@fw.wintelcom.net> <20000620123206.A56823@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Paul Saab <paul@mu.org> [000620 12:34] wrote: > > > > Sendfile's vm tricks and additional overhead per-page sized chunks > > make it unsuitable for sending smaller chunks of data. Paul Saab > > noticed that for some workloads it was actually slower than just > > copying the data while working at Hotmail. > > I was talking with dg last week and we may have found a flaw in the way > that I measured the speed. I am fairly convinced now that sendfile is > the prefered way to send data from a file. Can you elaborate on that? You're saying kblob is not necessary? How was the sendfile testing flawed? -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000621121854.W17420>