1- See also BENCHMARKS 2 3This FTPd should be very performant. The reasons for this are below, followed 4by specific benchmarks as and when I get them. 5 61) Generally, it is a fairly minimal FTPd. There should not be much code and/or 7syscall bloat. 8 92) For binary downloads, Linux sendfile() is used. This is a lot lighter on 10CPU/syscall usage than your regular read()/write() loop. 11 123) The "ls" command is fully internal. That is to say, an external "ls" command 13does not need to be launch. Launching an external process is costly because 14of the fork(), exec(), ELF loader startup, etc. 15 16 17It is not all good news, of course. Potential sources of poor performance 18include 19 201) Overhead of two processes per session (in some common configurations). 21 222) Excessive heap usage hidden behind the string API. 23 24 25BENCHMARKS 26========== 27 281) vsftpd downloads ASCII data at at least twice the rate of wu-ftpd. 29 302) vsftpd has achieved 86Mbyte/sec download over Gigabit ethernet between 31Linux-2.4.x boxes (thanks to sendfile()) 32 333) vsftpd has smaller virtual memory usage (and RSS, it seems) 34 354) Various reports have trickled in and indicate that vsftpd thumps wu-ftpd 36in performance tests. 37 38