On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 10:42:29AM +0200, you [Ingo Molnar] claimed:
>
> per RFC 2616:
> .............
> The Date general-header field represents the date and time at which the
> message was originated, [...]
>
> Origin servers MUST include a Date header field in all responses, [...]
> .............
>
> i considered the caching of the Date field for TUX too, and avoided it
> exactly due to this issue, to not violate this 'MUST' item in the RFC. It
> can be reasonably expected from a web server to have a 1-second accurate
> Date: field.
>
> the header-caching in X15 gives it an edge against TUX, obviously, but IMO
> it's a questionable practice.
>
> if caching of headers was be allowed then we could the obvious trick of
> sendfile()ing complete web replies (first header, then body).
Uhh, perhaps I'm stupid, but why not cache the date field and update the
field once a five seconds? Or even once a second?
I mean, at the rate of thousands of requests per second that should give you
some advantage over dynamically generating it -- especially if that's the
only thing hindering copletely sendfile()'ing the answer.
-- v --
v@iki.fi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 30 2001 - 21:00:20 EST