httpd-cvs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From field...@locus.apache.org
Subject cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/lib/apr/buckets doc_stacked_io.txt
Date Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:22:25 GMT
fielding    00/07/13 14:22:25

  Modified:    src/lib/apr/buckets doc_stacked_io.txt
  Log:
  More discussion of stacked io with cached objects
  
  Revision  Changes    Path
  1.3       +501 -0    apache-2.0/src/lib/apr/buckets/doc_stacked_io.txt
  
  Index: doc_stacked_io.txt
  ===================================================================
  RCS file: /home/cvs/apache-2.0/src/lib/apr/buckets/doc_stacked_io.txt,v
  retrieving revision 1.2
  retrieving revision 1.3
  diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3
  --- doc_stacked_io.txt	2000/07/13 08:00:11	1.2
  +++ doc_stacked_io.txt	2000/07/13 21:22:25	1.3
  @@ -554,6 +554,507 @@
   a database rather than reading from a file.]
   
   
  +**************************************************************
  +**************************************************************
  +Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 18:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
  +From: Alexei Kosut <akosut@leland.stanford.edu>
  +To: new-httpd@apache.org
  +Subject: A Magic Cache example
  +Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980909182642.29690A-100000@myth1.Stanford.EDU>
  +
  +During the drive home, I came up with a good example of how I envision the
  +new module/cache/layer model thingy working. Comments please:
  +
  +The middle end of the server is responsible for taking the request the
  +front end gives it and somehow telling the back end how to fulfill it. I
  +look at it like this: The request is a URI (Uniform Resource Identifier)
  +and a set of request dimensions (the request headers, the remote IP
  +address, the time of day, etc...). The middle end, via its configuration,
  +translates this into a request for content from a backing store module,
  +plus possibly some filter modules. Since the term "filename" is too
  +flat-file specific, let's call the parameter we pass to the backing store
  +a SRI (Specific Resource Identifier), in a format specific to that module.
  +
  +Our example is similar to the one I was using earlier, with some
  +additions: The request is for a URI, say "/skzb/teckla.html". The response
  +is a lookup from a (slow) database. The URI maps to the mod_database SRI
  +of "BOOK:0-441-7997-9" (I made that format up). We want to take that
  +output and convert it from whatever charset it's in into Unicode. We then
  +have a PHP script that works on a Unicode document and does things based
  +on whether the browser is Netscape or not. Then we translate the document
  +to the best charset that matches the characters used and the client's
  +capabilities and send it.
  +
  +So upon request for /skzb/teckla.html, the middle end translates the
  +request into the following "equation":
  +
  +        SRI: mod_database("BOOK:0-441-7997-9")
  +    +   filter: mod_charset("Unicode")
  +    +   filter: mod_php()
  +    +   fllter: mod_charset("best_fit")
  + -------------------------------------------------
  +        URI: /skzb/teckla.html
  +
  +It then constructs a stack of IO (NSPR) filters like this:
  +
  +mod_database -> cache-write -> mod_charset -> cache-write -> mod_php ->
  +cache_write -> mod_charset -> cache-write -> client
  +
  +And sets it to running. Each of the cache filters is a write-through
  +filter that copies its data into the cache with a tag based on what
  +equation the middle end uses to get to it, plus the request dimensions it
  +uses (info it gets from the modules).
  +
  +The database access is stored under "SRI: mod_database(BOOK:0-441-79977-9"
  +with no dimensions (because it's the same for all requests). The first
  +charset manipulation is stored under "SRI: mod_database(BOOK...) + filter:
  +mod_charset(Unicode)", again with no dimensions. The PHP output is stored
  +under "SRI: mod_database(BOOK...) + filter: mod_charset(Unicode) + filter:
  +mod_php()" with dimesions of (User-Agent). The final output is stored both
  +as "SRI: mod_database(BOOK...) + filter: mod_charset(Unicode) + filter:
  +mod_php() + filter: mod_charset(best_fit)" and "URI: /skzb/teckla.html"
  +(they're the same thing), both with dimensions of (User-Agent,
  +Accept-Charset).
  +
  +So far so good. Now, when another request for /skzb/teckla.html comes in,
  +the cache is consulted to see how much we can use. First, the URI is
  +looked up. This can be done by a kernel or other streamlined part of the
  +server. So "URI: /skzb/teckla.html" is looked up, and one entry pops out
  +with dimensions of (User-Agent, Accept-Charset). The user-agent and
  +accept-charset of the request are compared against the ones of the stored
  +entiry(ies). If one matches, it can be sent directly.
  +
  +If not, the server proceeds to look up "SRI: mod_database(BOOK...) +
  +filter: mod_charset(Unicode) + filter: mod_php()". If the request has a
  +different accept-charset, but the same user-agent, then this can be
  +reprocessed by mod_charset and used. Otherwise, the server proceeds back
  +to "SRI: mod_database(BOOK...) + filter: mod_charset(Unicode)", which will
  +match any request. There's probably some sort of cache invalidation
  +(expires, etc...) that happens eventually to result in a new database
  +lookup, but mostly, that very costly operation is avoided.
  +
  +I think I've made it out to be a bit more complicated than it is, with the
  +long equation strings mixed in there. But the above reflects my
  +understanding of how the new Apache 2.0 system should work.
  +
  +Note 1: The cache is smarter than I make it out here when it comes to
  +adding new entries. It should realize that, since the translation to
  +Unicode doesn't change or restrict the dimensions of the request, it
  +really is pointless to cache the original database lookup, since it will
  +always be translated in exactly the same manner. Knowing this, it will
  +only cache the Unicode version. 
  +
  +Note 2: PHP probably doesn't work with Unicode. And there may not be a way
  +to identify a script as only acting on the User-Agent dimension. That's
  +not the point.
  +
  +Note 3: Ten bonus points to anyone who's read this far, and is the first
  +person to answer today's trivia question: What does the skzb referred to
  +in the example URI stand for? There's enough information in this mail to
  +figure it out (with some help from the Net), even if you don't know
  +offhand (though if you do, I'd be happier). 
  +
  +-- Alexei Kosut <akosut@stanford.edu> <http://www.stanford.edu/~akosut/>
  +   Stanford University, Class of 2001 * Apache <http://www.apache.org> *
  +
  +
  +**************************************************************
  +Message-ID: <19980922224326.A16219@aisa.fi.muni.cz>
  +Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:43:26 +0200
  +From: Honza Pazdziora <adelton@informatics.muni.cz>
  +To: new-httpd@apache.org
  +Subject: Re: I/O Layering in next version of Apache.
  +References: <19980922111627.19784.qmail@hyperreal.org> <3607D53A.1FF6D93@algroup.co.uk>
<13831.55021.929560.977122@zap.ml.org>
  +In-Reply-To: <13831.55021.929560.977122@zap.ml.org>; from Ben Hyde on Tue, Sep 22,
1998 at 01:04:12PM -0400
  +
  +> >Does anyone have a starting point for layered I/O? I know we kicked it
  +
  +Hello,
  +
  +there has been a thread on modperl mailing list recently about
  +problems we have with the current architecture. Some of the points
  +were: what requerements will be put on modules to be new I/O
  +compliant. I believe it's the Apache::SSI vs. Apache::SSIChain
  +difference between 1.3.* and 2.*. The first fetches the file _and_
  +does the SSI, the second takes input from a different module that
  +either gets the HTML or runs the CGI or so, and processes its output.
  +Should all modules be capable of working on some other module's
  +output? Probably except those that actually go to disk or database for
  +the primary data.
  +
  +Randal's point was that output of any module could be processed, so
  +that no module should make any assumption whether it's sending data
  +directly to the browser or to some other module. This can be used both
  +for caching, but it also one of the things to get the filtering
  +transparent.
  +
  +Also, as Apache::GzipChain module shows, once you process the output,
  +you may need to modify the headers as well. I was hit by this when I
  +tried to convert between charsets, to send out those that the browsers
  +would understand. The Apache::Mason module shows that you can build
  +a page from pieces. Each of the pieces might have different
  +characteristics (charset, for example), so with each piece of code we
  +might need to have its own headers that describe it, or at least the
  +difference between the final (global) header-outs and its local.
  +
  +Sorry for bringing so much Perl module names in, but modperl is
  +currently a way to get some layered I/O done in 1.3.*, so I only have
  +practical experiance with it.
  +
  +Yours,
  +
  +------------------------------------------------------------------------
  + Honza Pazdziora | adelton@fi.muni.cz | http://www.fi.muni.cz/~adelton/
  +                   I can take or leave it if I please
  +------------------------------------------------------------------------
  +
  +**************************************************************
  +Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:46:47 -0700 (PDT)
  +From: Dean Gaudet <dgaudet@arctic.org>
  +To: new-httpd@apache.org
  +Subject: Re: I/O Layering in next version of Apache.
  +In-Reply-To: <36092F2D.BCC4E5C1@algroup.co.uk>
  +Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96dg4.980923103916.24223K-100000@twinlark.arctic.org>
  +
  +On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Ben Laurie wrote:
  +
  +> Dean Gaudet wrote:
  +> > 
  +> > On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Ben Laurie wrote:
  +> > 
  +> > > Is the simplest model that accomodates this actually just a stack
  +> > > (tree?) of webservers? Naturally, we wouldn't talk HTTP between the
  +> > > layers, but pass (header,content) pairs around (effectively).
  +> > > Interesting.
  +> > 
  +> > We could just talk "compiled" HTTP -- using a parsed representation of
  +> > everything essentially.
  +> 
  +> That's pretty much what I had in mind - but does it make sense? I have
  +> to admit, it makes a certain amount of sense to me, but I still have
  +> this nagging suspicion that there's a catch.
  +
  +We talked about this during the developers meeting earlier this summer... 
  +while we were hiking, so I don't think there were any notes.
  +
  +I think it'd be a useful exercise to specify a few example applications we
  +want to be able to support, and then consider methods of implementing
  +those applications.  Make the set as diverse and small as possible.  I'll
  +take the easiest one :)
  +
  +- serve static content from arbitrary backing store (e.g. file, database) 
  +
  +Once we flesh such a list out it may be easier to consider implementation
  +variations... 
  +
  +I think it was Cliff who said it this way:  in a multiple layer setup he
  +wants to be able to partition the layers across servers in an arbtrary
  +manner.  For example, a proxy cache on one box which the world talks to,
  +and which backends to various other boxes for dynamic and static content.
  +Or maybe the static content is on the same server as the proxy. If this is
  +something we want to support then talking (a restricted form of) HTTP
  +between layers is interesting. 
  +
  +Now we can all start worrying about performance ;) 
  +
  +Dean
  +
  +
  +**************************************************************
  +Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 11:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
  +From: Alexei Kosut <akosut@leland.stanford.edu>
  +To: new-httpd@apache.org
  +Subject: Re: I/O Layering in next version of Apache.
  +In-Reply-To: <36092F2D.BCC4E5C1@algroup.co.uk>
  +Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980923111613.17322C-100000@myth6.Stanford.EDU>
  +
  +On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Ben Laurie wrote:
  +
  +> > We could just talk "compiled" HTTP -- using a parsed representation of
  +> > everything essentially.
  +> 
  +> That's pretty much what I had in mind - but does it make sense? I have
  +> to admit, it makes a certain amount of sense to me, but I still have
  +> this nagging suspicion that there's a catch.
  +
  +One important thing to note is that we want this server to be able to
  +handle non-HTTP requests. So using HTTP as the internal language (as we do
  +now) is not the way to go. What we talked about in SF was using a basic
  +set of key/value pairs to represent the metadata of the response. Which
  +would of course bear an uncanny resemblance to HTTP-style MIME headers...
  +
  +Certainly, and this is the point I think the originator of this thread
  +raised, each module layer (see the emails I sent a few weeks ago for more
  +details on how I see *that*) needs to provide both a content filter and a
  +metadata filter. Certainly a module that does encoding has to be able to
  +alter the headers to add a Content-Encoding, Transfer-Encoding, TE, or
  +what have you. Many module that does anything to the content will
  +want to add headers, and many others will need to alter the dimensions on
  +which the request is served, or what the parameters to those dimensions
  +are for the current request. The latter is absolutely vital for cacheing.
  +
  +The problem, as I see it, is this: Often, I suspect it will be the case
  +that the module does not know what metadata it will be altering (and how)
  +until after it has processed the request. i.e., a PHP script may not
  +discover what dimensions it uses (as we discussed earlier) until after it
  +has parsed the entire script. But if the module is functioning as an
  +in-place filter, that can cause massive headaches if we need the metadata
  +in a complete form *before* we sent the entity, as we do for HTTP.
  +
  +I'm not quite sure how to solve that problem. Anyone have any brilliant
  +ideas?
  +
  +(Note that for internal caching, we don't actually need the dimension data
  +until after the request, because we can alter the state of the cache at
  +any time, but if we want to place nice with HTTP and send Vary: headers
  +and such, we do need that information. I guess we could send Vary:
  +footers...)
  +
  +-- Alexei Kosut <akosut@stanford.edu> <http://www.stanford.edu/~akosut/>
  +   Stanford University, Class of 2001 * Apache <http://www.apache.org> *
  +
  +
  +**************************************************************
  +Date: 23 Sep 1998 20:26:58 -0000
  +Message-ID: <19980923202658.25736.qmail@zap.ml.org>
  +From: Ben Hyde <bhyde@pobox.com>
  +To: new-httpd@apache.org
  +Subject: Stacking up Response Handling
  +In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980923111613.17322C-100000@myth6.Stanford.EDU>
  +References: <36092F2D.BCC4E5C1@algroup.co.uk>
  +	<Pine.GSO.3.96.980923111613.17322C-100000@myth6.Stanford.EDU>
  +
  +Alexei Kosut writes:
  +>The problem, as I see it, is this: Often, I suspect it will be the case
  +>that the module does not know what metadata it will be altering (and how)
  +>until after it has processed the request. i.e., a PHP script may not
  +>discover what dimensions it uses (as we discussed earlier) until after it
  +>has parsed the entire script. But if the module is functioning as an
  +>in-place filter, that can cause massive headaches if we need the metadata
  +>in a complete form *before* we sent the entity, as we do for HTTP.
  +>
  +>I'm not quite sure how to solve that problem. Anyone have any brilliant
  +>ideas?
  +
  +This is the same as building a layout engine that incremental layout
  +but simpler since I doubt we'd want to allow for reflow.
  +
  +Sometimes you can send output right along, sometimes you have to wait.
  +I visualize the output as a tree/outline and as it is swept out a
  +stack holds the path to the leave.  Handlers for the individual nodes
  +wait or proceed depending on if they can.
  +
  +It's pretty design with the pipeline consisting of this stack of
  +output transformers/generators.  Each pipeline stage accepts a stream
  +of output_chunks.  I think of these output_chunks as coming in plenty
  +of flavors, for example transmit_file, transmit_memory, etc.  Some
  +pipeline stages might handle very symbolic chunks.  For example
  +transmit_xml_tree might be handed to transform_xml_to_html stage in
  +the pipeline.
  +
  +I'm assuming the core server would have only a few kinds of pipeline
  +nodes, generate_response, generate_content_from_url_via_file_system,
  +generate_via_classic_module_api.  Things like convert_char_set or
  +do_cool_transfer_encoding, could easily be loaded at runtime and
  +authored outside the core.  That would be nice.
  +
  +For typical fast responses we wouldn't push much on this stack at
  +all.  It might go something like this: Push generate_response node, 
  +it selects an appropriate content generator by consulting the
  +module community and pushes that.  Often this is 
  +generate_content_from_url_via_file_system which in turn does
  +all that ugly mapping to a file name and then passes 
  +transmit_file down the pipeline and pops it's self off the stack.
  +generate_response once back on top again does the transmit and
  +pops off.
  +
  +For rich complex output generation we might push all kinds of things
  +(charset converters, transfer encoders, XML -> HTML rewriters, cache
  +builders, old style apache module API simulators, what ever).
  +
  +The intra-stack element protocol get's interesting around issues
  +like error handling, blocking, etc.  
  +
  +I particularly like how this allows simulation of the old module API,
  +as well as the API of other servers, and experimenting with other
  +module API which cross process or machine boundaries.
  +
  +In many ways this isn't that much different from what was proposed
  +a year ago.  
  +
  + - ben
  +
  +**************************************************************
  +From: Ben Hyde <bhyde@pobox.com>
  +Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:58:54 -0400 (EDT)
  +To: new-httpd@apache.org
  +Subject: Re: Core server caching
  +In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980923142800.14009A-100000@elaine40.Stanford.EDU>
  +References: <19980923210119.25763.qmail@zap.ml.org>
  +	<Pine.GSO.3.96.980923142800.14009A-100000@elaine40.Stanford.EDU>
  +Message-ID: <13833.39467.942203.885143@zap.ml.org>
  +
  +Alexei Kosut writes:
  +>On 23 Sep 1998, Ben Hyde wrote:
  +>
  +>> The core problem of caching seems to me to get confused by the
  +>> complexity of designing a caching proxy.  If one ignores that then the
  +>> core problem of caching seems quite simple.
  +>
  +>Actually, for an HTTP server, they're the same problem, if you want to be
  +>able to cache any sort of dynamic request. And caching static requests is
  +>kind of silly (Dean's flow stuff notwithstanding, making copies of static
  +>files in either memory or on disk is silly, since the OS can do it better
  +>than we can).
  +
  +I don't disagree with any of the things you said, so I guess I'm
  +failing to get across where in this structure the functions your
  +pointing out as necessary would reside as versus where the "chunk
  +cache" mechanism I'm yearning for would fit.
  +
  +Well, that's not entirely true I do feel it's helpful to make this
  +point.
  +
  +The HTTP spec's definition of proper caching is terribly constrained
  +by the poverty of information available to the proxy server.  He is
  +trapped in the middle between an opinionated content provider and an
  +opinionated content consumer.  It was written in an attempt to keep
  +people like AOL from making their opinions dominate either of those
  +other two.  Proper caching by a server that is right next to the
  +content generation can and ought to include both more or less
  +heuristics that are tunable by the opinions of the content provider
  +who presumably we are right next to.
  +
  +Imagine the server that has a loop that goes like so:
  +
  +   loop
  +     r<-swallow_incomming_request
  +     h<-select_response_handler(r)
  +     initialize_response_pipeline()
  +     push_pipeline_element(h)
  +     tend_pipeline_until_done()
  +   end loop
  +
  +In most of the web based applications I've seen the
  +select_response_handler step evolves into something that looks like an
  +AI expert system.  That said, what I'd like to see is in Apache2 is a
  +simple dispatch along with a way to plug-in more complex dispatching
  +mechanisms.  I'd very much like to avoid having that get confused with
  +the suite of response_handlers.
  +
  +I ignored the complexity of when to you can safely select
  +a cached value because I think it's in the select_response_handler
  +step.  And possibly, I'll admit, not part of what I called the
  +"core server"
  +
  +Clearly I'm a fool for using this term 'core server' since it
  +doesn't mean anything.  I wanted it to mean that loop above
  +and the most minimal implementations for the pipeline and
  +the select_response_handler one could imagine before starting
  +to pile on.  The server as shipped would have a lot more
  +stuff in it!
  +
  +What I'm focused on is what has to be in that core versus
  +what has to be, but can be outside of it.
  +
  +So. as i thought about the state of the pipeline just after
  +the call on initialize_response_pipeline I at first thought
  +it would have something much like the current buffer abstraction
  +in the pipeline.  Then i got to wondering if transfer encoding,
  +charset conversion, or caching ought to be in there.
  +
  +I think there is an argument for putting some caching functionality
  +in there.  Possibly because that entire knot is what you'd move
  +into the OS if you could.  Possibly because this is the bit
  +that must fly.
  +
  +Recall that I think the pipeline takes a stream of response
  +chunks with things like memory_chunk, transfer_file_chunk, etc.
  +in that stream.  The question is what flavors of chunks does
  +that bottom element in the pipeline take.  It's the chunks
  +that fly (and nothing more?).  So I got to thinking about
  +what does it mean to have a cached_chunk.
  +
  +A cached_chunk needs only the small operation set along
  +the lines of what I mentioned.  A full caching scheme
  +can build on it.  As an added benefit the caching scheme
  +can be dumb, standard, extremely witty without effecting
  +this portion of the design.
  +
  +A quick point about why I wanted the cache to handle things
  +smaller than entire responses.  This isn't central I guess.
  +
  +I want a protocol with content generators that encourages
  +them to use dynamic programming tricks to quickly generate
  +portions of pages that are static over long periods.  Such
  +a scheme has worked well in systems we've built.
  +
  + - ben hyde
  +
  +**************************************************************
  +From: Ben Hyde <bhyde@pobox.com>
  +Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 23:16:37 -0500 (EST)
  +To: new-httpd@apache.org
  +Subject: Re: Core server caching
  +In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96dg4.981029175439.3639X-100000@twinlark.arctic.org>
  +References: <Pine.WNT.4.05.9810292049480.-445955@helium.jetpen.com>
  +	<Pine.LNX.3.96dg4.981029175439.3639X-100000@twinlark.arctic.org>
  +Message-ID: <13881.12903.661334.819447@zap.ml.org>
  +
  +Dean Gaudet writes:
  +>On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
  +>
  +>> There are also weird and wacky things you would be able to do if you could
  +>> stack mod_php on top of mod_perl.
  +>
  +>You people scare me.
  +>
  +>Isn't that redundant though?
  +>
  +>Dean
  +
  +Yes it's scary, but oddly erotic, when these behemoths with their
  +gigantic interpreters try to mate.
  +
  +It's interesting syndrome, systems as soon as they get an interpreter
  +they tend to loose their bearings and grow into vast behemoths that
  +lumber about slowly crushing little problems with their vast mass.
  +Turing syndrome?
  +
  +I've heard people say modules can help avoid this, but I've rarely
  +seen it.  Olde Unix kinda manages it remember being frightened by
  +awk.
  +
  +Can we nudge alloc.c/buff.c toward a bit of connective glue that
  +continues to let individual modules evolve their own gigantism while
  +avoiding vile effects on the core performance of the server?  Stuff
  +like this:
  +
  +  memory chunk alignment for optimal I/O
  +  memory hand off along the pipeline
  +  memory hand off crossing pool boundaries
  +  memory hand off in zero copy cases
  +  transmit file
  +  transmit cache elements
  +  insert/remove cache elements
  +  leverage unique hardware and instructions
  +
  +That memcpy in ap_bread really bugs me.
  +
  +I'd be rather have routines that let me handoff chunks.  Presumably
  +these would need to be able to move chunks across pool and buffer
  +boundaries.  But zero copy if I don't touch the content and never a
  +memcpy just to let my lex the input.
  +
  +I've built systems like this with the buffers exposing a emacs
  +buffer style of abstraction, but with special kinds of marks
  +to denote what's released for sending, and what's been accepted
  +and lex'd on the input side.  It does create mean all your
  +lexical and printf stuff has to be able to smoothly slide
  +over chunk boundaries.
  +
  + - ben
  +
   *************************************************************************
   Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 13:08:22 -0800 (PST)
   From: Ed Korthof <ed@bitmechanic.com>
  
  
  

Mime
View raw message