On 8/12/05, Brian J. France <list@firehawksystems.com> wrote:
> Really? We just did a around of discussion/debugging on this at work
> and I found that it uses ap_lingering_close which is like the
> lingering_close function in 1.3.
:)
Yes, it does do ap_lingering_close, and it sets SO_LINGER. I have no
idea why they do both, I only assume they know what they are doing and
it works out for the best. I have my ideas, but they are just
postulates... I'm surprised it is an ap call and not an apr call, but
I am not a web server programmer!
> > o Lingerd caused my apache setup to crash. It was worth a try if it
> > didn't take much effort, but not worth fixing.
>
> Are people really finding that they need lingerd?
>
> For 1.3 we have keepalive off and build with NO_LINGCLOSE, which means
> be blast the data to the kernel buffer (set large) close the socket and
> move on. We have been doing this for at least 3+ years and I have
> never heard any complaints and we server a lot of requests/client (I am
> tied with Rasmus).
I should give that a test. But the value to me would be temporary,
since I want to move to Keep-Alive under the same hardware layout.
-steve--