httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r603502 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c
Date Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:06:19 GMT


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com] 
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2007 13:59
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: svn commit: r603502 - 
> /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:16 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
> 
> >
> > The connection memory pool was a different memory pool 
> before. It was
> > the memory pool of the front end connection. Now it is the 
> memory pool
> > of the backend connection pool connection. See also
> >
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=603237
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=602542
> >
> > If we would use r->connection->pool instead of r->pool it would be  
> > exactly the
> > same as before the two revisions above, but regarding the pool  
> > livetimes I
> > think r->connection->pool lives too long and thus using r->pool  
> > wastes less
> > memory.
> >
> 
> This is all based on not even looking at these changes, so I
> may be blowing smoke. But certainly the backend connection
> pool lasts longer than the initial request that "bootstrapped"
> that connection, right? So if we creating the backend stuff
> out of r->pool, then for sure that can't be right...

The backend connection: Yes, I agree.
The backend request (rp): No, it lasts shorter than r, and it gets
recreated for every new request.

Regards

Rüdiger

Mime
View raw message