Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:59:52 +0000
From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: cache: the store_body interface
Message-ID: <20061031095952.677ec5e3@grimnir>
In-Reply-To: <3C80B8D5-6A90-45FA-A198-FBB51C3D0B16@gbiv.com>
References: <20061030182310.GC25419@redhat.com>
	<5c902b9e0610301036j3de36845rc8767e405def7dd8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20061030204524.78da7f07@grimnir>
	<3C80B8D5-6A90-45FA-A198-FBB51C3D0B16@gbiv.com>
Organization: WebThing
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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