httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Stoddard" <b...@wstoddard.com>
Subject Re: [2.0] lstat's in spite of AllowOverride None
Date Wed, 07 Nov 2001 17:48:08 GMT

> From: "Martin Kraemer" <Martin.Kraemer@Fujitsu-Siemens.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 10:23 AM
> 
> 
> > On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 09:31:03AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > > > Yep, of course. Also, the SHMHT (shared memory hash table) might help
us
> > > > avoid redundant l?stat()s overall.
> > > 
> > > I'm wondering what the buy will be compared with OS caching?  I'm certain we
will
> > > see significantly different improvements depending on the underlying kernel
cache.
> > 
> > Right. "Current modern OS's" aren't always as optimized as they could be
> > (someone measured 1000 cps before the forward walk change against around
> > 330 cps after this change, on win2k). And a system call always means
> > (on unix, at least) much higher overhead than a function call.
> 
> The direct-hit method should clear up much of this confusion, since I rather suspect
> that we are also seeing side effects of the recent filtering changes.
> 

The performance hit I am seeing is -definitely- due to the extra stats. No question.

Bill


Mime
View raw message