21 messages in org.apache.httpd.devRe: Is async the answer
FromSent OnAttachments
Akins, Brian18 Jan 2008 10:52 
Justin Erenkrantz18 Jan 2008 11:16 
Colm MacCarthaigh18 Jan 2008 11:20 
Akins, Brian18 Jan 2008 11:27 
Akins, Brian18 Jan 2008 11:31 
Colm MacCarthaigh18 Jan 2008 12:07 
Akins, Brian18 Jan 2008 13:17 
Colm MacCarthaigh18 Jan 2008 13:29 
Ruediger Pluem18 Jan 2008 14:30 
Justin Erenkrantz18 Jan 2008 16:33 
Niklas Edmundsson19 Jan 2008 03:53 
Graham Leggett19 Jan 2008 04:45 
Davi Arnaut19 Jan 2008 06:57 
Jim Jagielski19 Jan 2008 07:04 
Graham Leggett19 Jan 2008 08:02 
Henrik Nordström19 Jan 2008 13:14 
Henrik Nordström19 Jan 2008 13:19 
Davi Arnaut19 Jan 2008 15:29 
Graham Leggett20 Jan 2008 07:44 
Akins, Brian22 Jan 2008 10:03 
Akins, Brian22 Jan 2008 10:08 
Subject:Re: Is async the answer
From:Davi Arnaut (da@apache.org)
Date:01/19/2008 03:29:28 PM
List:org.apache.httpd.dev

Graham Leggett wrote:

Davi Arnaut wrote:

The proxy that the LiveJournal folks wrote, I think, copies all the data from the origin server into a file and then uses sendfile to send to the client...

Doesn't this limit the network bandwidth to the bandwidth of the disk and/or file system?

Yes, and the effective bandwidth of the disk can be significantly higher than both the cache backend (which is often expensive) and the network frontend (which has slow potential slow clients typing up your resources).

Don't forget that your cache disk is most often RAM backed, meaning effectively your cache disk is a ramdisk, with all the speed advantages that go with it.

This is true for expensive hardware and very well designed operating systems and file systems.. and the space is not infinite.

But... OK. Back to the topic I thought that one of the key points of async/event based servers were that we use software to scale and not hardware (so that hardware is not the bottleneck)... like serving thousands of slow clients from commodity hardware.

-- Davi Arnaut