> We set TCP_CORK on the socket we handed to external programs that were
> being run via 'site exec' in an ftp server. It resulted in much nicer
> packets being spit out, especially in the 'ls' case where it likes to
> write() on really goofy boundaries.
>
> [yes, ftp and 'site exec' in particular are far from sexy, but do the same
> with CGI scripts and the world might care :)]
actually in apache we deliberately writev() on (essentially) the same
boundaries the CGI passed to us.
the reason, gag puke, is for doing things such as sending "activity"
progress -- like a line at a time or whatever to indicate that the CGI is
there and still working.
this is obviously something that we really should enable nagle for, and
we've been in a dilemma of whether to nagle or not in this case for a few
years. we want to not nagle if the CGI is bulk... we want to nagle if the
CGI is a dribbler (because that's what nagle is for).
CORK would probably be wrong for us.
-dean
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/