Re: Performance analysis questions

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Apr 94-present
• Next message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: Performance analysis questions "
• Previous message: Yechezkal-Shimon Gutfreund: "Re: file i/o api for URL"
• Maybe in reply to: Andrew Payne: "Re: Performance analysis questions "
• Reply: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: Performance analysis questions "

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Sun, 15 May 1994 04:55:38 +0200
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Message-id: <8263*phillips@cs.ubc.ca>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: phillips@cs.ubc.ca
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: George Phillips <phillips@cs.ubc.ca>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Performance analysis questions 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

Andrew Payne wrote:
>Actually, you can get the best of both methods.  Read the first 4 bytes of 
>the connection.  If the method is POST, read the rest of the connection 
>unbuffered and hand the socket off to the script.  Otherwise, do large 
>block reads and buffer all you'd like.  If you seek the ultimate in 
>performance, the extra code might be worth it.

Exactly.  My suggestion was for a quick hack to halve the processing
time.  What you suggest is the right way to fix it.  Note that you
can read more than 4 bytes.  Assume generosity on what your server
accepts, the minimal HTTP/1.0 request is  "GET / HTTP/1.0<LF><LF>".
16 bytes.  That will still work with HTTP/0.9 requests since the
record boundary will cut your read short, if necessary.