You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to modproxy-dev@apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2001/08/30 23:52:38 UTC
Re: 2.0.26?]
Have any of you had a chance to play with the change from using <Directory proxy:foo>
syntax to using <Proxy foo> syntax? Any comments from the first few days of it's
existence? Anyone playing with benchmarking 2.0.24 vs. cvs head on req/sec?
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eli Marmor" <ma...@netmask.it>
To: <mo...@apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 3:00 PM
Subject: [Fwd: 2.0.26?]
> Please look at the forwarded message from new-httpd.
>
> Looks as a good time to roll a tar with Apache/proxy/APR, doesn't it?
>
> It's too early to know if this tag will become a beta, but it will be
> surely more stable than the current beta (2.0.16 or 2.0.18, I don't
> remember...).
>
> --
> Eli Marmor
> marmor@netmask.it
> CTO, Founder
> Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd.
> __________________________________________________________
> Tel.: +972-9-766-1020 8 Yad-Harutzim St.
> Fax.: +972-9-766-1314 P.O.B. 7004
> Mobile: +972-50-23-7338 Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel
Re: 2.0.26?]
Posted by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com>.
On 30 Aug 2001, Ian Holsman wrote:
> > > There is probably another weeks worth of work in optimizing these
> > > modules (see the ap_location_walk function for such an example.)
> > > Then all these code paths can be folded into a single place.
> >
> > The other option is that we patch these to a single code path
> > _today_. Let Apache run a bit slow until these optimizations are
> > moved into the right, magic places.
> >
> I think that would make more sense.
+1
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: 2.0.26?]
Posted by Ian Holsman <Ia...@cnet.com>.
On Thu, 2001-08-30 at 16:44, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 6:34 PM
>
>
> > From: "Ian Holsman" <ia...@cnet.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 5:42 PM
> > >
> > > the only thing 'funny' I'm noticing is that the map_to_storage hook
> > > isn't getting called for a sub-request.. this may be my code
> > > I just noticed that 10 minutes ago,
> > > I'm still investigating it.
> >
> > That would be a problem. It doesn't surprize me either. Every month I go back over the
> > discrepancies in the internal_internal_redirect v.s. ap_process_request v.s. all the
> > other ways we set up redirects/subrequests.
> >
> > These distinctions have to go away. Not that the steps can't be _heavily_ optimized
> > by looking at r->prev or r->main for clues, but we need a single code path through
> > this potentially tricky code.
> >
> > Notice all the fooness in the subreq mechanisms "Hey, if this, then we don't need to
> > do that!" All well and good until some module gets hurt ;) If the authn/authz module
> > _itself_ peeked at the pool data for r->main->p, "my_own_cache" and sees it's being
> > redundant, it pulls a fast exit (fast OK, fast DECLINED, or fast HTTP_NOT_AUTHORIZED.)
> >
> > There is probably another weeks worth of work in optimizing these modules (see the
> > ap_location_walk function for such an example.) Then all these code paths can be folded
> > into a single place.
>
> The other option is that we patch these to a single code path _today_. Let Apache run a
> bit slow until these optimizations are moved into the right, magic places.
>
I think that would make more sense.
> Thoughts?
>
> Bill
--
Ian Holsman
Performance Measurement & Analysis
CNET Networks - 415 364-8608
Re: 2.0.26?]
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 6:34 PM
> From: "Ian Holsman" <ia...@cnet.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 5:42 PM
> >
> > the only thing 'funny' I'm noticing is that the map_to_storage hook
> > isn't getting called for a sub-request.. this may be my code
> > I just noticed that 10 minutes ago,
> > I'm still investigating it.
>
> That would be a problem. It doesn't surprize me either. Every month I go back over the
> discrepancies in the internal_internal_redirect v.s. ap_process_request v.s. all the
> other ways we set up redirects/subrequests.
>
> These distinctions have to go away. Not that the steps can't be _heavily_ optimized
> by looking at r->prev or r->main for clues, but we need a single code path through
> this potentially tricky code.
>
> Notice all the fooness in the subreq mechanisms "Hey, if this, then we don't need to
> do that!" All well and good until some module gets hurt ;) If the authn/authz module
> _itself_ peeked at the pool data for r->main->p, "my_own_cache" and sees it's being
> redundant, it pulls a fast exit (fast OK, fast DECLINED, or fast HTTP_NOT_AUTHORIZED.)
>
> There is probably another weeks worth of work in optimizing these modules (see the
> ap_location_walk function for such an example.) Then all these code paths can be folded
> into a single place.
The other option is that we patch these to a single code path _today_. Let Apache run a
bit slow until these optimizations are moved into the right, magic places.
Thoughts?
Bill
Re: 2.0.26?]
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Crossposted to dev@httpd.apache.org
From: "Ian Holsman" <ia...@cnet.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 5:42 PM
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> > Have any of you had a chance to play with the change from using <Directory proxy:foo>
> > syntax to using <Proxy foo> syntax? Any comments from the first few days of it's
> > existence? Anyone playing with benchmarking 2.0.24 vs. cvs head on req/sec?
>
>
> I was benchmarking cvs head with different pool allocation algorithms.
> (and threaded/prefork) http://webperf.org/a2/v25
>
> I'm playing with the proxies and mod-include at the moment
>
> the only thing 'funny' I'm noticing is that the map_to_storage hook
> isn't getting called for a sub-request.. this may be my code
> I just noticed that 10 minutes ago,
> I'm still investigating it.
That would be a problem. It doesn't surprize me either. Every month I go back over the
discrepancies in the internal_internal_redirect v.s. ap_process_request v.s. all the
other ways we set up redirects/subrequests.
These distinctions have to go away. Not that the steps can't be _heavily_ optimized
by looking at r->prev or r->main for clues, but we need a single code path through
this potentially tricky code.
Notice all the fooness in the subreq mechanisms "Hey, if this, then we don't need to
do that!" All well and good until some module gets hurt ;) If the authn/authz module
_itself_ peeked at the pool data for r->main->p, "my_own_cache" and sees it's being
redundant, it pulls a fast exit (fast OK, fast DECLINED, or fast HTTP_NOT_AUTHORIZED.)
There is probably another weeks worth of work in optimizing these modules (see the
ap_location_walk function for such an example.) Then all these code paths can be folded
into a single place.
First I'm trying to narrow down ap_directory_walk to a single function (the new
implementation, I hope it's easier for everyone to follow.) Once that is done, I'll
put the same optimization from ap_location_walk onto ap_file_walk and ap_directory_walk.
[You might even steal the code I add to ap_directory_walk for proxy_walk :)
Then on through the module hooks. Anyone who wants to join me, speak up and we will
divy it up ;) I just have to get the new directory_walk code in so a very thorough
review can begin.
Bill
Re: 2.0.26?]
Posted by Ian Holsman <ia...@cnet.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Have any of you had a chance to play with the change from using <Directory proxy:foo>
> syntax to using <Proxy foo> syntax? Any comments from the first few days of it's
> existence? Anyone playing with benchmarking 2.0.24 vs. cvs head on req/sec?
I was benchmarking cvs head with different pool allocation algorithms.
(and threaded/prefork) http://webperf.org/a2/v25
I'm playing with the proxies and mod-include at the moment
the only thing 'funny' I'm noticing is that the map_to_storage hook
isn't getting called for a sub-request.. this may be my code
I just noticed that 10 minutes ago,
I'm still investigating it.
>
> Bill
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eli Marmor" <ma...@netmask.it>
> To: <mo...@apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 3:00 PM
> Subject: [Fwd: 2.0.26?]
>
>
>
>>Please look at the forwarded message from new-httpd.
>>
>>Looks as a good time to roll a tar with Apache/proxy/APR, doesn't it?
>>
>>It's too early to know if this tag will become a beta, but it will be
>>surely more stable than the current beta (2.0.16 or 2.0.18, I don't
>>remember...).
>>
>>--
>>Eli Marmor
>>marmor@netmask.it
>>CTO, Founder
>>Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd.
>>__________________________________________________________
>>Tel.: +972-9-766-1020 8 Yad-Harutzim St.
>>Fax.: +972-9-766-1314 P.O.B. 7004
>>Mobile: +972-50-23-7338 Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel
>>