On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 06:38:24PM +0400, Maxim Dounin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 03:43:44PM +0200, Thomas Love wrote:
>
> > On 26 July 2011 13:57, Maxim Dounin <mdounin@mdounin.ru> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > Attached patch (against 1.0.5) introduces upstream keepalive
> > > support for memcached, fastcgi and http. Note the patch is
> > > experimental and may have problems (though it passes basic smoke
> > > tests here). Testing is appreciated.
> > >
> > >
> > Sounds great. Is it expected to work in this case:
> >
> > upstream fastcgi_backend {
> > server unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock
> > keepalive 32;
> > }
>
> Yes (though I'm not sure if php is able to maintain connections
> alive, but quick look suggests it should).
>
> > And if so, is it expected to have a performance benefit?
>
> Likely yes, but not a big one. It will save several syscalls per
> request, but you'll unlikely to notice compared to typical php
> request processing costs.
>
> Keepalive connections are mostly beneficial if response costs are
> comparable with connection establishment costs (i.e. over
> high-latency links or with really fast backends).

I saw reports that on busy filesystem on FreeBSD unix socket connection
establishment may be slow since these sockets uses the same kernel code
path as usual filesystems.


--
Igor Sysoev

_______________________________________________
nginx-devel mailing list
nginx-devel@nginx.org
http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx-devel