apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Justin Erenkrantz" <jus...@erenkrantz.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r512557 - in /apr/apr-util/trunk: CHANGES dbm/sdbm/sdbm.c
Date Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:29:10 GMT
On 2/28/07, Joe Orton <jorton@redhat.com> wrote:
> The caller could already pass in APR_BUFFERED in the mode parameter to
> apr_sdbm_open(), AFAICS.

Well, that doesn't help apr_dbm_* - which doesn't permit such flags to
be passed.  I only realized after I committed that we even had a
bypass mechanism for apr_dbm_* which allows SDBM to be utilized -
ugly!

> I have very little trust in the buffered I/O code, people have been very
> fixing basic bugs in it all through 1.2.x, and there are a couple more
> reported in bugzilla already.  So I wouldn't call this low-risk.
>
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40963 could easily
> affect sdbm.

What would you suggest?

The performance implications of not doing buffered reads just *kills*
our server - so we need to do something and adding buffering lessens
the load quite dramatically.  In our situation, we couldn't care less
about modifying the file - we only care to optimize the read-only case
- and I believe that code is just fine and stable.  Though I guess I'd
prefer we fix the problems with buffering if they do exist.

Would you be concerned if we added APR_BUFFERED to APR_DBM_DBMODE_RO
for sdbm?  -- justin

Mime
View raw message