Remy Maucherat wrote > After testing and benching, implementing buffering at the lower layer is > much better, as it avoids introducing complexity in all the levels of > processing, and is more powerful. The performance impact of the new > behavior is minimal (using a worst case scenario of a static file, the > difference is about 2-3%). > I believe the updated implementation will meet your needs. > > What's the most optimal packet size overall, BTW ? 1500 ? > > Remy >
Thanks, Remy - I ran my original test again with your new buffered connector. My test page now loads using only 5 packets (same as Apache). The low level buffereing is much cleaner than the approach I was suggesting. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
