apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: Poor performance with new apr_pool
Date Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:02:36 GMT

On Mar 30, 2009, at 2:57 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:

>
>
> On 03/30/2009 08:20 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> OK... I've tested httpd-trunk (head) with apr-1.4 (head)
>> and apr-trunk (head). This is on OS X (10.5.6) with both
>> worker and event MPM. I've also tried different default
>> mutexes (OSX is SysV, but I've also forced fcntl) and the
>> rub is that when using the test framework, the
>> t/module/dir.t test is very, very VERY slow.
>>
>> With apr-1.4 I get FULL framework test times of:
>>
>>  t/TEST > /dev/null 2>&1  20.24s user 5.02s system 53% cpu 46.932  
>> total
>>  t/TEST > /dev/null 2>&1  20.39s user 5.08s system 54% cpu 46.692  
>> total
>>
>> with apr-2.0, I get times like
>>
>>  t/TEST t/modules/dir.t > /dev/null 2>&1  1.22s user 0.49s system 0%
>> cpu 7:17.12 total
>>
>> *just* for the dir.t test.
>>
>> When I get back from San Mateo I intend to enable pool debugging and
>> doing some profiling/tracing
>
> Still weird as I cannot see the same on Linux with pthread used as a  
> mutex.
> I assume your APR 2.0 included r759519, correct?
>

Yep... I will try to recreate on Ubuntu in addition to the
OS X testing.


Mime
View raw message