apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Bloom <...@ntrnet.net>
Subject Re: Faster time_now() [Was: Why not POSIX time_t?]
Date Mon, 15 Jul 2002 05:20:13 GMT
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> At 10:03 PM 7/14/2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> >BTW, this whole conversation started because we wanted to speed up
> >Apache.  Has anybody considered taking a completely different tack to
> >solve this problem?
> >
> >I know there is a patent on this, but I am willing to ignore it, and I
> >am pretty sure that we can get the patent owner to let us use it.  (I
> >won't say who owns the patent, but if the owner wants to stand up, it
> >will be obvious why I say this).  We could create a separate thread to
> >keep track of the current time every second.  That way, the computation
> >is completely removed from request processing it is just a memory
> >access.  On platforms without threads, we just go back to getting the
> >time during request processing.  That will hurt performance for those
> >platforms, but I am not too concerned about that.
> Such code, of course, certainly doesn't belong in apr.  That's a higher
> level construct that would fit well in http, or any other app that needs
> such performance tweaks.  The app would have to decide how to live
> if it doesn't have threads available.
> And there is the matter of IP :-)

Of course this doesn't belong in APR, but the only reason the whole
apr_time_t discussion came up was to fix a performance problem in
Apache.  If that performance problem hadn't come up, would we have even
looked at changing the current implementation?


Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
550 Jean St
Oakland CA 94610

View raw message