From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Message-Id: <199702161437.JAA13592@shado.jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: updated status for 1.2b7
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 09:37:35 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970216001751.23557S-100000@alive.znep.com> from
 "Marc Slemko" at Feb 16, 97 00:37:43 am
Content-Type: text
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

Marc Slemko wrote:
> 
> So are the whole whack of other performance improvement things added over
> the past few weeks.  This really originated along with all the others, it
> just didn't get added at that point.  It isn't really a new patch as such;
> I wouldn't write it now and say include it.

I'd like to see it included... But I also agree that we have to have
a drop-dead date for No More Features :)
> 
> There is still the lingering_close issue.  There are two parts:
> 
> 	- it kills servers.  This is the same one that has been
> 	  hanging around for the past few months and has not been
> 	  fixed.  FIN_WAIT_2.
> 	- it slows down performance.  This can possibly be worked
> 	  around with Dean's suggestion and should have been
> 	  improved by Roy's patch lowering the timeout.  I will
> 	  look at implementing Dean's solution tomorrow.  If
> 	  I think I can do it without too many changes, I will.
> 
> I am not convinced that we will find the solution to connections
> building up in FIN_WAIT_2 before 1.2.  Tenative proposal:
> 
> 	- either ship 1.2 with NO_LINGCLOSE for platforms that
> 	  don't have a timeout or put a very big note saying
> 	  "IF YOU ARE RUNNING {XXX,XXX,...} YOU SHOULD DO THIS".
> 	  I perfer not adding it but making people do it themself
> 	  because then they are aware of it.  Current platforms
> 	  I can think of that need NO_LINGCLOSE are UnixWare 
> 	  (I think there is some patch for it, but don't know
> 	  for sure...), SunOS (not likely a patch will come out),
> 	  and IRIX (for now, until they release their patch).

A/UX as well and most likely NeXT. In fact, all BSD-4.3-based
OSs most likely need it. :/

I would really like to have l_c() tested as much as possible and
therefore have it enabled by default for all platforms. Unfortunately,
this may cause heartburn on the testers. No real good solution, but
that's what beta-tests are for. Enable l_c() for all and tell people
in NICE BIG LETTERS that l_c() is a sensitive chunk of code and
we want it tested :/

> Tenative date of Wed. for 1.2b7?  

Doable.

-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
                  "Not the Craw... the CRAW!"