httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org>
Subject Re: mod_cache summary and plan
Date Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:03:57 GMT


On 10/29/2006 04:39 PM, Davi Arnaut wrote:
> Graham Leggett wrote:
> 
>>Davi Arnaut wrote:
>>
>>
>>>. Problem:
>>
>>You have described two separate problems below.
> 
> 
> No, and it's seems you are deeply confused on what buckets and brigades
> represent. You already committed what ? four fixes to the same problem ?
> Each time we point your wrong assumptions you came up with yet another
> bogus fix. Could you please stop for a moment and listen ?
> 
> IMHO, you haven't presented any acceptable fix and you keep trying to
> fix things by your self without discussing on the list first. And more
> important, discussing on the list means that you have to hear other
> people comments.
> 
> 

> 
>>The solution was to pass the output filter through the save_body() hook, 
>>and let the save_body() code decide for itself when the best time is to 
>>write the bucket(s) to the network.
>>
>>For example in the disk cache, the apr_bucket_read() loop will read 
>>chunks of the 4.7GB file 4MB at a time. This chunk will be cached, and 
>>then this chuck will be written to the network, then cleanup up. Rinse 
>>repeat.
>>
>>Previously, save_body() was expected to save all 4.7GB to the cache, and 
>>then only write the first byte to the network possibly minutes later.
>>
>>If a filter was present before cache that for any reason converted file 
>>buckets into heap buckets (for example mod_deflate), then save_body() 
>>would try and store 4.7GB of heap buckets in RAM to pass to the network 
>>later, and boom.
> 
> 
> You just described what I've said with another words. Listen if you
> don't change a bit your attitude I won't continue arguing with you, it's
> pointless.

I do not really like the way the discussion goes here. If I remember myself
correctly we had a very similar discussion between you and Graham several
month ago regarding the need for mod_cache to be RFC compliant. It may be that
we circle around the same things again and again and sometimes this may be even
unproductive. But this way for sure we do not get anything (and the past proved it)
productive out of this. As we had this in the past I try to throw a flag very early
to avoid wasting time for everybody with the back and forth following such things.
If you are frustrated by Grahams responses and the situation please try to express
this a little different and less personalized.


Regards

RĂ¼diger

Mime
View raw message