On 10/30/06, Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 10:26:18AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> My concern with this is we should be careful not to teach the
> providers about the fact that it is sitting in an output filter chain.
This is solvable if desired, but I'd like to address it separately to
keep this thread under control.
Sure.
> >2) avoids writing a given URL/variant to the cache more than once
> >simultaneously using open/O_EXCL
>
> There's problems with relying upon O_EXCL. mod_disk_cache
> purposefully lets the race condition happen as without inter-process
> sync, it's not really easy to know who is actually around and is
> likely to finish.
Are you talking issues with O_EXCL not being reliable on e.g. NFS, or
just about the fact that the partial file left by a dead/hung process
subsequently prevents any chance to write to that cache file?
The latter. (NFS is a lower priority - I'd like to see it work, but
if it can't no biggie, IMO.)
This is a tricky trade-off; I can go either way. I would say it would
be OK to rely on htcacheclean having heuristics to expire (prematurely
if necessary) such partial files.
Hmm. Maybe, but that's a bit more complex than I'd like to see.
*shrug* -- justin
