httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Bloom <...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: Async IO was Re: Pools rewrite [2]
Date Wed, 05 Dec 2001 14:37:38 GMT
On Tuesday 04 December 2001 10:47 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

It has always been a problem of timing.  After 2.0 is released, I plan
to look at creating an MPM for async I/O.  And unless this requires
massive code changes, I would expect it to go in a 2.0 release.

This is the type of thing that we should be doing after 2.0 is finally
made a GA release, look for cool ways to use the current architecture
to do new things.

Ryan

> [ Moving this to dev@httpd since I think this is not yet an
>   APR issue.  The app needs to drive this, not the portability
>   library. ]
>
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:09:11PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > The idea is to never allow your threads to block doing network i/o. Do
> > all your reads/writes with non-blocking (or asynchronous) i/o.
>
> Considering I'm a newbie here, I've just spent a lot of time in
> the archives looking at what you guys have said before about
> trying to do async I/O in httpd.
>
> So, can someone tell me why we haven't done this before?  It
> sure isn't because no one has wanted to.  It keeps popping up
> every year or so since 1997.  What has been the killer?
>
> I see a tremendous amount of posts around June/July 1999 about
> work on async-server hybrid (ASH MPM).  However, I can't find
> what happened to the bugger.  Dean kept talking about it, but
> obviously something happened to halt it.
>
> <Pine.LNX.3.96dg4.990618090647.27639I-100000@twinlark.arctic.org>
> http://www.apachelabs.org/apache-mbox/199906.mbox/%3cPine.LNX.3.96dg4.99061
>8090647.27639I-100000@twinlark.arctic.org%3e
>
> <Pine.LNX.3.96dg4.990619160004.27639b-100000@twinlark.arctic.org>
> http://www.apachelabs.org/apache-mbox/199906.mbox/%3cPine.LNX.3.96dg4.99061
>9160004.27639b-100000@twinlark.arctic.org%3e
>
> I wish we had a web page that listed "frequent topics" and
> their point/counterpoints.  I don't want to go down any road
> that has already been covered.  And, seeing the posts in this
> timeframe leads me to believe that almost every point has been
> covered.  -- justin

-- 

______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom				rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies			rbb@covalent.net
--------------------------------------------------------------

Mime
View raw message