httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Kew <n...@webthing.com>
Subject Re: cache: the store_body interface
Date Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:59:52 GMT
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:43:12 -0800
"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:


(dammit, I wasn't going to post again in this discussion,
for the forseeable, but this wants an answer)

> 
> If you are going to -1 something, you need to have a technical reason
> for it IN THE MESSAGE.  You can't assume that your reason is obvious.
> In this case, I have to assume that you are worried about the file
> bucket having to go through user space to be stored, as opposed to
> more efficient routines handling it like a sendfile.  However,
> since we aren't talking about network writes in store_body, and
> store_body will have to read/write the data as buffers anyway,
> I don't see any justification for that veto.

It was not intended as any such thing.  Just a comment noting
that we have an extremely simple case in which this caching
strategy will degrade system performance not just a little,
but by a whole order of magnitude.  The lusers will love it.

I'm not vetoing anything in mod_cache.  I'm nowhere near
familiar enough with it for that.  But I do know that
"I wouldn't start from here": by bypassing the normal request
processing cycle, it's introduced a lot of extra complexity
for a very questionable gain (would you use mod_cache to
serve local, static contents?)

-- 
Nick Kew

Mime
View raw message