Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 16:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@organic.com>
Subject: Re: Shambhala
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
In-Reply-To: <199506302248.AA045682481@ooo.lanl.gov>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9506301605.N5763-0100000@eat.organic.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

On Fri, 30 Jun 1995, Rob Hartill wrote:
> I remember saying words to the effect of "this is what I plan to 
> do, stop me if you think this isn't a good idea". Why the hell didn't
> anyone say something ? 

I wasn't sure what rst's time frame was, and it seemed reasonable that a 
lot of knowlege gained by pushing ahead with the non-forking model could 
be applied to shambala anyways.  I was surprised at how quickly shambala 
came to fruition!  Having 0.7x around has definitely helped the 
situations I'm involved with, too.

> That said, and after looking at the code and trying (for a few minutes)
> it looks great, and I've no objection to switching to it.
> 
> If we'd switched earlier, we'd be in much better shape now. The code
> would have had a much broader testing.. e.g. one of the first random
> URLs I clicked on exposed a minor problem that'll need fixing.

I'm actually planning on putting shambala on links.net today, which will 
give it a 250K/day test site (though it doesn't use most of Apache's 
advanced features so it'll more useful for basic performance testing than 
feature-based bug fixing).  As soon as xbithack's in I can set it up on 
hyperreal.

Glad we have reached consensus.

	Brian

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com  brian@hyperreal.com  http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/