Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of sean@conman.org designates
 66.252.224.242 as permitted sender)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 18:34:38 -0400
From: Sean Conner <sean@conman.org>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: C as config
Message-ID: <20100608223438.GA19920@brevard.conman.org>
References: <yuatypfj83n.fsf@kabuki.raleigh.ibm.com>
 <C832E012.D1264%Brian.Akins@turner.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <C832E012.D1264%Brian.Akins@turner.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

It was thus said that the Great Akins, Brian once stated:
> On 6/7/10 9:16 AM, "Dan Poirier" <poirier@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Did you profile httpd?  I'm wondering if you had a few non-trivial hooks
> > in lua, if it would be a significant part of the CPU consumption, or
> > would it be swamped by the rest of the processing that always goes on
> > for a request?
> 
> 
> Increasingly, httpd is just there to provide a base to run Lua stuff for us.
> You'd be surprised how easily problems get solved with a few if's and else's
> instead of mounds of rewrite rules.
> 
> At "normal" load it doesn't really matter - the trade off is worth it
> ("speed" vs simplicity).  However, as the servers get more and more loaded,
> Lua takes a rather large percentage of the CPU. And it's the "Lua stuff" not
> the part that does work.  The constant string hashing, metatable lookups,
> etc.

  If your platform is x86, have you considered testing with LuaJIT?  It
compiles Lua code directly into x86 code and is a drop-in replacement for
lua (just link against libluajit instead of liblua).  The few tests I've
done have been impressive [1].

  -spc

[1]	http://boston.conman.org/2010/02/03.2