Hi Stas!
On 05/02/15 21:28, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Does the following kcachegrind screenshot give an idea (I used a minimum
>> node cost of 10% to simplify the graph)?
>>
>> Left is raphf enabled (24M Ir) and on the right raphf disabled (35M Ir):
>> http://dev.iworks.at/ext-http/raphf.png
>>
>> Have a look on the top-most far-right highlighted block, which is solely
>> devoted to tearing up curl instances when raphf is disabled.
>
> I still don't understand why the comparison is made against worst
> possible implementation (going through all connection cycle every time)
> as opposed to logical implementation of HTTP connection object
> supporting keepalive.
>
Uhm, I'm not sure I understand :-? Weren't I supposed to measure exacly
that? Let me know, if you wanted something else to be compared.
--
Regards,
Mike