On 8/12/05, Brian J. France <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Really? We just did a around of discussion/debugging on this at work > and I found that it uses ap_lingering_close which is like the > lingering_close function in 1.3.
:) Yes, it does do ap_lingering_close, and it sets SO_LINGER. I have no idea why they do both, I only assume they know what they are doing and it works out for the best. I have my ideas, but they are just postulates... I'm surprised it is an ap call and not an apr call, but I am not a web server programmer! > > o Lingerd caused my apache setup to crash. It was worth a try if it > > didn't take much effort, but not worth fixing. > > Are people really finding that they need lingerd? > > For 1.3 we have keepalive off and build with NO_LINGCLOSE, which means > be blast the data to the kernel buffer (set large) close the socket and > move on. We have been doing this for at least 3+ years and I have > never heard any complaints and we server a lot of requests/client (I am > tied with Rasmus). I should give that a test. But the value to me would be temporary, since I want to move to Keep-Alive under the same hardware layout. -steve-- -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
