Hi, I was trying to confirm the performance improvement via replacing read/write sequences with sendfile, But I got quite a surprising result: $ gcc -DUSE_SENDFILE cp.cpp $ time ./a.out real 0m56.121s user 0m0.000s sys 0m4.844s $ gcc cp.cpp $ time ./a.out real 0m27.363s user 0m0.014s sys 0m4.443s The result show that, in my test scenario, the read/write sequences only use half of the time by sendfile. My guess is that sendfile using a default pipe with buffer size 1<<16 (16 pages), which is not tuned for the underling IO, hence a read/write sequences with buffer size 1<<17 is much faster than sendfile. But the problem with sendfile is that there is no parameter to tune the buffer size from userspace...Any chance to fix this? The test code is as following: #include <stdio.h> #include <unistd.h> #include <sys/types.h> #include <sys/stat.h> #include <sys/sendfile.h> #include <fcntl.h> char buf[1<<17]; // much better than 1<<16 int main() { int i, fin, fout, n, m; for (i=0; i<128; i++) { // dd if=/dev/urandom of=./bigfile bs=131072 count=256 fin = open("./bigfile", O_RDONLY); fout = open("./target", O_WRONLY | O_CREAT | O_DSYNC, S_IWUSR); #ifndef USE_SENDFILE while(1) { n = read(fin, buf, sizeof(buf)); if (n==0) break; m = write(fout, buf, n); if (n != m) { printf("fail to write, expect %d, actual %d\n", n, m); perror(":"); return 1; } } #else off_t offset = 0; struct stat st; if (fstat(fin, &st) != 0) { perror("fail to fstat\n"); return 1; } sendfile(fout, fin, &offset, st.st_size); #endif close(fin); close(fout); } return 0; } FYI David