Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at
 spf.trusted-forwarder.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
Subject: Re: Intent to T&R 2.4.7
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
In-Reply-To: <3A1D73E4-B884-451D-8A5B-FDE96BC1BB50@jaguNET.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:13:06 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <964BCC76-DBA1-4C49-BA4C-6813D7B06741@jaguNET.com>
References: <4BCDF1B3-F032-4EBA-816D-94555703B819@jaguNET.com>
 <52842703.6080506@primary.net>
 <84F4E273-EC68-4B5B-BD4F-55FEC65B1052@jaguNET.com>
 <D9E5E68A-2C37-4ED2-A1D2-F598CDCB0958@jaguNET.com>
 <528A65EB.60403@primary.net> <528A667F.9090004@primary.net>
 <528A6D03.9000203@primary.net>
 <C72E8517-4943-49F4-A62E-ED1509B60935@jaguNET.com>
 <3A1D73E4-B884-451D-8A5B-FDE96BC1BB50@jaguNET.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org

yeah, I'm thinking

    /*
     * Figure out if our passed in proxy_conn_rec has a usable
     * address cached.
     *
     * TODO: Handle this much better...=20
     *
     * XXX: If generic workers are ever address-reusable, we need=20
     *      to check host and port on the conn and be careful about
     *      spilling the cached addr from the worker.
     */
    if (!conn->hostname || !worker->s->is_address_reusable ||
        worker->s->disablereuse || *worker->s->uds_path) {
        if (proxyname) {
            conn->hostname =3D apr_pstrdup(conn->pool, proxyname);
            conn->port =3D proxyport;

isn't right...

On Nov 18, 2013, at 3:43 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:

> Hmm... maybe a re-use issue? Let me look.
>=20
> On Nov 18, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>=20
>> I can think or see anything in the actual request handling
>> aspect that's any different from the original proposal,
>> certainly nothing that would result in any sort of
>> performance issue.
>>=20
>> What MPM? Have you tried w/ 2.4.6?
>>=20
>> On Nov 18, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DRuggeri@primary.net> =
wrote:
>>=20
>>> And... this is a bit discouraging, but as a comparison to the older =
UDS
>>> patch....
>>> 2.4.6 + original UDS patch:
>>> Requests/sec:   5347.17
>>> Requests/sec:   5102.16
>>> Requests/sec:   5074.15
>>>=20
>>> This is a sizable difference... Note that the current 2.4 backport
>>> proposal was applied to 2.4.6 since that is what I tested the =
original
>>> patch with (to keep everything apples to apples).
>>>=20
>>> I'll jump in to take a look at this when time is available (next =
week?)
>>> but would like to fish for any immediate thoughts in the mean time.
>>>=20
>>> --
>>> Daniel Ruggeri
>>>=20
>>> On 11/18/2013 1:11 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>>>> Oops - I copypasta'd the per-thread stats. Total stats for the test =
follow:
>>>> httpd:
>>>> Requests/sec:   4633.17
>>>> Requests/sec:   4664.49
>>>> Requests/sec:   4657.63
>>>>=20
>>>> nginx:
>>>> Requests/sec:   5701.16
>>>> Requests/sec:   5798.08
>>>> Requests/sec:   5584.60
>>>=20
>>=20
>=20