From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 13 09:46:57 2013 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Sep 2013 13:46:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33129 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VKTi4-00087f-KL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:46:57 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:38450) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VKTi2-000874-KT for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:46:54 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VKThr-0003Fh-0v for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:46:49 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:59640) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VKThq-0003Fb-Ue for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:46:42 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40123) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VKThl-0000SY-1z for bug-guile@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:46:42 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VKThf-0003E6-39 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:46:36 -0400 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([141.255.128.1]:55191) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VKThe-0003E2-Sk for bug-guile@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:46:31 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81F5F15BD for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:41:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hera.aquilenet.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3XntG1Atvijz for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:41:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pluto (reverse-83.fdn.fr [80.67.176.83]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2106415BB for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:41:28 +0200 (CEST) From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: bug-guile@gnu.org Subject: HTTP client is slow [2.0.9] User-Agent: Gnus/5.130007 (Ma Gnus v0.7) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 27 Fructidor an 221 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 83C4 F8E5 10A3 3B4C 5BEA D15D 77DD 95E2 EA52 ECF4 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:41:27 +0200 Message-ID: <87d2oc260o.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x [fuzzy] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -5.9 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.9 (-----) I just noticed that our HTTP client is very slow. Consider this: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- (use-modules (web client) (rnrs io ports) (rnrs bytevectors) (srfi srfi-11) (ice-9 format)) (define %uri "http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/idutils/idutils-4.6.tar.xz") (with-fluids ((%default-port-encoding #f)) (let*-values (((start) (gettimeofday)) ((p) (let ((s (open-socket-for-uri %uri))) (setvbuf s _IONBF) s)) ((r h) (http-get %uri #:port p #:streaming? #t #:decode-body? #f)) ((d len) (let ((b (get-bytevector-all h))) (values b (bytevector-length b))) ;; (let ((b (make-bytevector (* 5 (expt 2 20))))) ;; (values b ;; (get-bytevector-n! h b 0 (bytevector-length b= )))) ) ((end) (gettimeofday)) ((throughput) (let ((duration (- (car end) (car start)))) (/ (/ len 1024.) duration 1.0)))) (format #t "~5,1f KiB/s (total: ~5,1f KiB)~%" throughput (/ len 1024.)))) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Here I get a throughput of ~60 KiB/s, vs. ~400 KiB/s for wget and curl. Looking at the strace output reveals no real difference: they all make one syscall for each chunk of 1410 bytes. =E2=80=98time=E2=80=99 reports that Guile spends 0.2 s. in user and 0.8 s. = in system, both of which are an order of magnitude higher than wget/curl. Bypassing the custom binary input ports from http.scm and response.scm doesn=E2=80=99t make any big difference. Forcing the zero-copy path in =E2=80=98scm_c_read=E2=80=99 doesn=E2=80=99t help much either. Ideas? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 13 11:03:23 2013 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Sep 2013 15:03:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33935 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VKUu3-0001k4-Eg for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:03:23 -0400 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([141.255.128.1]:39455) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VKUu0-0001jv-KC for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:03:21 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2057415AE for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 17:03:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hera.aquilenet.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M9DyJ1i5w63T for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 17:03:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pluto (reverse-83.fdn.fr [80.67.176.83]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C744F15A5 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 17:03:18 +0200 Message-Id: <87bo3w2289.fsf@gnu.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: control message for bug #15367 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) merge 15367 15368 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 13 12:07:22 2013 Received: (at 15368) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Sep 2013 16:07:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34110 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VKVtx-0004OW-IO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 12:07:22 -0400 Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:59916 ident=hope5) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VKVts-0004OL-9E for 15368@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 12:07:19 -0400 Received: from 209-6-91-212.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.91.212] helo=tines.lan) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VKVtk-0001e2-Oo; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 12:07:08 -0400 From: Mark H Weaver To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: bug#15368: HTTP client is slow [2.0.9] References: <87d2oc260o.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 12:07:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87d2oc260o.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:41:27 +0200") Message-ID: <8738p8ln8a.fsf@tines.lan> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15368 Cc: 15368@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) Hi Ludovic, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > I just noticed that our HTTP client is very slow. Consider this: > > (use-modules (web client) > (rnrs io ports) > (rnrs bytevectors) > (srfi srfi-11) > (ice-9 format)) > > (define %uri > "http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/idutils/idutils-4.6.tar.xz") > > (with-fluids ((%default-port-encoding #f)) > (let*-values (((start) > (gettimeofday)) > ((p) > (let ((s (open-socket-for-uri %uri))) > (setvbuf s _IONBF) Why are you using an unbuffered port? On my system, changing this to _IOFBF increases throughput from 326 KiB/s to 489.0 KiB/s. Also, the fact that my throughput is so much higher than yours (on a several-year-old computer) is interesting. Obviously I have a faster net connection (wget reports 1.19M/s), but the fact that Guile can benefit so much from my faster connection suggests that the body is read reasonably efficiently. I guess the problem is added latency somewhere, or perhaps inefficiency in the writing of the request or reading of the response headers. Note that using an unbuffered port means that all the reads of the response headers will be done 1 byte at a time. > s)) > ((r h) > (http-get %uri > #:port p > #:streaming? #t > #:decode-body? #f)) > ((d len) > (let ((b (get-bytevector-all h))) > (values b (bytevector-length b))) > ;; (let ((b (make-bytevector (* 5 (expt 2 20))))) > ;; (values b > ;; (get-bytevector-n! h b 0 (bytevector-length= b)))) > ) > ((end) > (gettimeofday)) > ((throughput) > (let ((duration (- (car end) (car start)))) > (/ (/ len 1024.) duration 1.0)))) > (format #t "~5,1f KiB/s (total: ~5,1f KiB)~%" > throughput (/ len 1024.)))) > > Here I get a throughput of ~60 KiB/s, vs. ~400 KiB/s for wget and curl. > > Looking at the strace output reveals no real difference: they all make > one syscall for each chunk of 1410 bytes. > > =E2=80=98time=E2=80=99 reports that Guile spends 0.2 s. in user and 0.8 s= . in system, > both of which are an order of magnitude higher than wget/curl. If they make essentially the same syscalls, then why would the system time be an order of magnitude higher? Something doesn't sound right here. Regards, Mark From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 13 17:14:15 2013 Received: (at 15368) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Sep 2013 21:14:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34742 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VKagv-0003rA-Gs for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 17:14:15 -0400 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([141.255.128.1]:40095) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VKags-0003qx-Bw for 15368@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 17:14:11 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E52D151B; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 23:14:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hera.aquilenet.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qWG7kENTsnkt; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 23:14:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pluto (reverse-83.fdn.fr [80.67.176.83]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 225341512; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 23:14:07 +0200 (CEST) From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: bug#15368: HTTP client is slow [2.0.9] References: <87d2oc260o.fsf@gnu.org> <8738p8ln8a.fsf@tines.lan> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 27 Fructidor an 221 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 83C4 F8E5 10A3 3B4C 5BEA D15D 77DD 95E2 EA52 ECF4 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 23:14:07 +0200 In-Reply-To: <8738p8ln8a.fsf@tines.lan> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Fri, 13 Sep 2013 12:07:01 -0400") Message-ID: <87wqmkwhk0.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130007 (Ma Gnus v0.7) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15368 Cc: 15368@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mark H Weaver skribis: > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > >> I just noticed that our HTTP client is very slow. Consider this: >> >> (use-modules (web client) >> (rnrs io ports) >> (rnrs bytevectors) >> (srfi srfi-11) >> (ice-9 format)) >> >> (define %uri >> "http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/idutils/idutils-4.6.tar.xz") >> >> (with-fluids ((%default-port-encoding #f)) >> (let*-values (((start) >> (gettimeofday)) >> ((p) >> (let ((s (open-socket-for-uri %uri))) >> (setvbuf s _IONBF) > > Why are you using an unbuffered port? On my system, changing this to > _IOFBF increases throughput from 326 KiB/s to 489.0 KiB/s. Arf, that=E2=80=99s because I was also forcing the =E2=80=98scm_c_read=E2= =80=99 hack (which is currently never used, and this is a bug): --=-=-= Content-Type: text/x-patch Content-Disposition: inline diff --git a/libguile/ports.c b/libguile/ports.c index 9068c5c..c217712 100644 --- a/libguile/ports.c +++ b/libguile/ports.c @@ -1657,7 +1657,8 @@ scm_c_read (SCM port, void *buffer, size_t size) requested number of bytes. (Note that a single scm_i_fill_input call does not guarantee to fill the whole of the port's read buffer.) */ - if (pt->read_buf_size <= 1 && pt->encoding == NULL) + if (pt->read_buf_size <= 1 + && (pt->encoding == NULL || strcmp (pt->encoding, "ISO-8859-1") == 0)) { /* The port that we are reading from is unbuffered - i.e. does not have its own persistent buffer - but we have a buffer, --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So in practice it was reading several KiB at a time, doing zero-copy. > Also, the fact that my throughput is so much higher than yours (on a > several-year-old computer) is interesting. Obviously I have a faster > net connection (wget reports 1.19M/s), So for you wget is ~2.5 times faster than Guile, right? [...] >> Looking at the strace output reveals no real difference: they all make >> one syscall for each chunk of 1410 bytes. >> >> =E2=80=98time=E2=80=99 reports that Guile spends 0.2 s. in user and 0.8 = s. in system, >> both of which are an order of magnitude higher than wget/curl. > > If they make essentially the same syscalls, then why would the system > time be an order of magnitude higher? Something doesn't sound right > here. I concur. I=E2=80=99ve tried Linux perf and OProfile but failed to get useful info. Ludo=E2=80=99. --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jan 22 11:12:05 2014 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Jan 2014 16:12:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60814 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W60PM-00081X-Ib for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:12:05 -0500 Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:56876) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W60PJ-000812-CB for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:12:02 -0500 Received: from 209-6-91-212.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.91.212] helo=yeeloong) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1W60PD-00035h-CS; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:11:55 -0500 From: Mark H Weaver To: control@debbugs.gnu.org Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:08:25 -0500 Message-ID: <87txcwm22u.fsf@netris.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: unmerge 15367 merge 15368 15367 thanks [...] Content analysis details: (2.0 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header 0.2 NO_SUBJECT Extra score for no subject X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: unmerge 15367 merge 15368 15367 thanks [...] Content analysis details: (2.0 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header 0.2 NO_SUBJECT Extra score for no subject unmerge 15367 merge 15368 15367 thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jan 22 11:16:27 2014 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Jan 2014 16:16:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60822 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W60Ta-0000py-QV for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:16:27 -0500 Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:56884) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W60TX-0000pp-1q for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:16:23 -0500 Received: from 209-6-91-212.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.91.212] helo=yeeloong) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1W60TP-00037l-Kn; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:16:16 -0500 From: Mark H Weaver To: control@debbugs.gnu.org Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:12:41 -0500 Message-ID: <87ppnkm1vq.fsf@netris.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: unmerge 15367 thanks [...] Content analysis details: (2.0 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header 0.2 NO_SUBJECT Extra score for no subject X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: unmerge 15367 thanks [...] Content analysis details: (2.0 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header 0.2 NO_SUBJECT Extra score for no subject unmerge 15367 thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri May 23 16:14:08 2014 Received: (at 15368-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 May 2014 20:14:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58236 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Wnvqw-0003B0-23 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 May 2014 16:14:08 -0400 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([141.255.128.1]:40142) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Wnvqs-0003AM-QC for 15368-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 May 2014 16:14:03 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 572312328 for <15368-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 23 May 2014 22:14:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hera.aquilenet.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p87eb5MnmC9n for <15368-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 23 May 2014 22:14:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pluto (reverse-83.fdn.fr [80.67.176.83]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 037241E38 for <15368-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 23 May 2014 22:14:00 +0200 (CEST) From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: 15368-done@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#15368: HTTP client is slow [2.0.9] References: <87d2oc260o.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 22:14:00 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87d2oc260o.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:41:27 +0200") Message-ID: <87egzks16f.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130009 (Ma Gnus v0.9) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15368-done X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) skribis: > Here I get a throughput of ~60 KiB/s, vs. ~400 KiB/s for wget and curl. There=E2=80=99s one little detail I hadn=E2=80=99t even bothered checking: ;; Enlarge the receive buffer. (setsockopt s SOL_SOCKET SO_RCVBUF (* 12 1024)) Its effect was to *shrink* the receive buffer from 124 KiB (the default size, per /proc/sys/net/core/rmem_default) to 12 KiB... Fixed in 0bb3f94, which will be in 2.0.12. Ludo=E2=80=99. From unknown Sat Sep 20 07:39:26 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:24:04 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator