httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Holsman <i...@cnet.com>
Subject Re: 2 modules
Date Tue, 27 Nov 2001 16:43:31 GMT
On Mon, 2001-11-26 at 21:17, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> From: "Justin Erenkrantz" <jerenkrantz@ebuilt.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 11:09 PM
> 
> 
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 02:49:20PM -0800, Ian Holsman wrote:
> > 
> > > 2. mod_sentinel (bad name) skips the file/directory walk and does a
> > > open/fstat instead of stat/open to read the file, resulting in a
> > > performance win when the file is on NFS, and you don't need to check
> > > file permissions etc
> > 
> > Wouldn't it be better to have this as an option in the core 
> > than as a separate module?  -- justin
> 
> ++1  on integrating an apr_file_t * right into the request_rec.  This would
> be an enormous advantage to everyone.
> 
> But don't suggest it's a user option - it's not.  And in fairness to our
> module authors, lets please table it till 2.1.  Simply, we try a direct hit
> on the file.  If we succeed with open/fstat, great, if not, we do the usual
> stat [must be a dir, or access was denied.]
> 
> Other modules will win, too.  A file permanantly opened [cached] becomes 
> nothing but a dup2.  mod_mime_magic doesn't have to add an extra open/close
> to the mix, it's nothing but a read/seek(0).  This is generally goodness.
> 
> But I'm guessing it's 3 months before everything is optimized and settles
> out from this [very worthwhile] change.  Do we make everyone wait three more
> months?  No, IMHO we offer a savory performance enhancement with 2.1.
> 
agreed I'd rather get 2.0 than wait 3 months.. so this will be a 2.1
mod.
> Bill
-- 
Ian Holsman          IanH@cnet.com
Performance Measurement & Analysis
CNET Networks   -   (415) 344-2608


Mime
View raw message