It's not a big deal, but I don't see why we should add a configure option
if it's something which we'll remove the minute Wez has some more spare
time and improves the implementation.
At 01:40 AM 4/22/2004 +0200, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Andi,
i still cannot say any reason against a configur
Hello Andi,
i still cannot say any reason against a configure option here?
marcus
Wednesday, April 21, 2004, 1:42:00 PM, you wrote:
> For now make it like 4MB. When you fix it to mmap() parts of the file I'd
> use 256 or 512KB.
> Andi
> At 12:38 PM 4/21/2004 +0100, Wez Furlong wrote:
>>Whic
At 08:46 AM 4/21/2004 -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On April 21, 2004 05:52 am, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> I have played with mmap() in the past. I found that mapping in relatively
> small blocks such as 1MB does not really hurt performance. I suggest not to
> add yet another INI option but to do it wi
On April 21, 2004 05:52 am, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> I have played with mmap() in the past. I found that mapping in relatively
> small blocks such as 1MB does not really hurt performance. I suggest not to
> add yet another INI option but to do it with smaller blocks. I think even
> 256KB wouldn't make
1MB it is.
--Wez.
- Original Message -
From: "Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Derick Rethans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Wez Furlong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 12:51 PM
Subject: Re
At 01:49 PM 4/21/2004 +0200, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> >My patch is "nice" at this stage in the release because it is a
> >minimal change that can't hurt anything; tweaking the passthru
> >code is a bit more worrying :/
>
> In that case, I'd put a hardcoded l
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> >My patch is "nice" at this stage in the release because it is a
> >minimal change that can't hurt anything; tweaking the passthru
> >code is a bit more worrying :/
>
> In that case, I'd put a hardcoded limit after which you fallback to
> non-mmap()'ed re
For now make it like 4MB. When you fix it to mmap() parts of the file I'd
use 256 or 512KB.
Andi
At 12:38 PM 4/21/2004 +0100, Wez Furlong wrote:
Which brings us back to the original problem ;)
How big should the limit be?
--Wez.
> In that case, I'd put a hardcoded limit after which you fallback
Which brings us back to the original problem ;)
How big should the limit be?
--Wez.
> In that case, I'd put a hardcoded limit after which you fallback to
> non-mmap()'ed reading and not add an INI option. Then you can add the
> tweaked code when you have time/energy.
> Andi
--
PHP Internals -
At 12:10 PM 4/21/2004 +0100, Wez Furlong wrote:
Andi,
Do you think mmap'ing a series of smaller chunks is going to be
faster than mmap'ing the whole file, or faster than reading
chunks conventionally? (just asking; I've not done any tests)
I'm saying that mmap'ing chunks which are relatively big s
;t hurt anything; tweaking the passthru
code is a bit more worrying :/
--Wez.
- Original Message -
From: "Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Wez Furlong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP-
Wez,
I have played with mmap() in the past. I found that mapping in relatively
small blocks such as 1MB does not really hurt performance. I suggest not to
add yet another INI option but to do it with smaller blocks. I think even
256KB wouldn't make a big difference.
Andi
At 10:10 PM 4/20/2004
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=19749
It's been playing on my mind recently that this bug
hasn't been addressed; the problem was how to guess
precisely what limit to set for mmaping when doing
something like readfile().
[note that some comments are missing from the bugdb
for that bug]
Well, we can
13 matches
Mail list logo
