forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tim Williams" <william...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Locationmap Caching Help (FOR-732/711)
Date Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:55:39 GMT
On 3/30/06, Ross Gardler <rgardler@apache.org> wrote:
> Tim Williams wrote:
> > On 3/30/06, Ross Gardler <rgardler@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>Tim Williams wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 3/30/06, Ross Gardler <rgardler@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Tim Williams wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > I think I'm not explaining it well enough.  "n" (e.g. 315) is not the
> > number of nodes (SelectNode, MountNode, etc.); "n" is the number of
> > references to "lm:some-resource" involved in a given request.  In
> > other words, traversing all of the nodes is actually really fast,
> > traversing all of the nodes for each of the 315 references to an
> > lm:some-resource is, in total, slow.
>
> Ahhh... OK, that makes more sense now - sorry for being so thick.
>
> I'm still having real difficulty understanding why a single page results
> in 315 "lm:some-resource" requests. Do we have any idea waht these are?
> I ask because it appears that in your testing you have set up some
> decent profiling.

Well, I haven't been looking at *what* they are really.  No decent
profiling - just basic logging.  We're a victim of our own success I
reckon - we've moved tons of stuff to use the locationmap protocol and
now we're seeing the fruits of it.

My linux command skills leave something to be desired but...
cd $FORREST_HOME/main
grep lm: * | more

and

cd $FORREST_HOME/main
grep lm: * | awk 'END {print NR}'

This returns 223 - which, i think, is the number of references to the
locationmap protocol in our core xmaps.  I reckon some are referenced
multiple times?

> This figure really confirms something I've been thinking for some time.
>
> Forrest has got horribly monolithic and we need a spring clean (it's
> spring in my part of the world anyway). Unfortunately, this is a *huge*
> job, I'm not proposing we do this now. But we ought to think about it
> for a 1.0 release.

No argument here.. just trying to work with what we got at the moment.

--tim

Mime
View raw message