At 10:45 AM 3/20/2003, you wrote: >Has anyone done any testing of shmht in 2.0? It quickly stops caching >new sessions for me using Geoff Thorpe's swamp tool. If anyone does >want to put effort into getting it working, I've attached a patch which >contains some fixes: the conversion to the RMM code was not finished.
+1, as long as this code remains in the tree, it's good for us to have the very best code available. >I don't really see any point in putting any effort into the shmht code; >shmcb has been the session cache of choice for a while (and it works >fine in 2.0 by my testing). I've attached a second patch which removes >shmht completely, which is the patch I'd recommend. The files >ssl_util_table.[ch] and ssl_scache_shmht.c can be removed after applying >this patch. I don't necessarily disagree for 2.1-dev, but we've sort of concurred that users shouldn't have to switch modules or configuration significantly in a given minor version (e.g. 2.0). Now I'm not arguing that's it's very unlikely a user successfully used shmht.c, but as a matter of principle, we shouldn't drop this away from 2.0. Suggestion, apply the fixes to 2.1/2.0 and let's revisit this decision when the list is ready to consider the 2.2 release. Perhaps some interested parties will step up and demonstrate its extra value. If not, then it will be time to drop it from the 2.1 tree before we bless 2.2. Bill
