Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4321BCAF.4050301@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:47:43 -0500
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6-1.1.fc3 (X11/20050720)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: How long until 2.2
References: <BF1D3B39.16AA%Brian.Akins@turner.com>
 <42F8259A.9000508@holsman.net> <43219161.3030102@web.turner.com>
In-Reply-To: <43219161.3030102@web.turner.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Brian Akins wrote:
> 
> I have been testing 2.1 in our environment.  So far, so good.  I was 
> especially testing the prosy stuff (proxy, http, and balancer).  Very 
> good stuff.

Good to hear!

> The event MPM is much slower in our case.

We may or may not ship the event MPM.  Our new release model has *all*
the code on trunk/.  Once the RM and community decide to 'release', we
will also consider dropping specific things.

I have no opinion on whether the event MPM is ready for GA.  I'd sure
like to see it shipped in our betas, however!  Any observations about
the MPM and specific performance hits I'm sure are appreciated.

> The new cache still is too slow for our needs.  With several of the 
> patches I have submitted here, we get within about 10% of our in-house 
> cache.  I have integrated allot of the mod_cache stuff into our in-house 
> cache modules.  I suppose our own single-purpose module (reverse 
> proxy/cache)will always outperform the more general stock mod_cache.

Quite possibly - generic code is (almost) always a bit less performant.
But I was curious, are you saying httpd performs at 10% of your custom
proxy's thoroughput, or simply 10% slower?

Bill