Hi!

Jason Rogers <jacaetevha at fast-mail.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-04-16 at 14:39, Lex Spoon wrote:
> > FWIW, I've previously done simple benchmarks of Comanche doing bulk
> > downloads, and found it just as fast as Apache and scp: ie, it saturates
> > the network.  This was on 10Mbit/sec networks.
> > 
> > For simply filling up a T1 link, Squeak and Comanche should be fine.  I
> > don't know what was different about my old computer, from the machine
> > you are testing on, but clearly something funny is going on.  Sorry I
> > don't have any specific suggestions, but maybe this at least gives you
> > some hope!
> 
> Yes, thank you.  I am still planning to try the FastSocketStream
> suggested earlier.  But, I have been derailed from this particular
> problem for the time being.

This is the heart of it all:

HttpResponse>>pvtWriteContentsOn: aStream
	| chunkSize cnts |
	chunkSize _ self responseChunkSize.
	cnts _ self contents.

	[cnts atEnd] whileFalse: 
		[aStream nextPutAll: (cnts next: chunkSize); flush]

responseChunkSize will be 131072. cnts is the FileStream reading from
disk. aStream is a SocketStream. So it tries to read 131kb at a time and
send it out, if you start looking at SocketStream>>nextPutAll: and flush
etc you will notice that this definitely isn't optimal (lots of copying
and buffer growing going on) and that FastSocketStream is much better in
general.

But I haven't tested large file downloading (only uploading, which is
MUCH better with FastSocketStream) much so I am not sure about the
specifics.

regards, Göran