httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davi Arnaut <d...@haxent.com.br>
Subject Re: mod_cache summary and plan
Date Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:21:36 GMT
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> 
> 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.

Yes, but it was about the generic cache architecture.

> 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.

I'm not frustrated, I just wanted to tell him what I thought. I think he
is a smart guy and works hard on the issues but we could achieve much
more by collaborating constructively in a sane manner (step by step).

--
Davi Arnaut


Mime
View raw message