On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:25:46 -0400 Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 25, 2013, at 8:07 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wmr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Before we incorporate it... can we have some sense of the impact of > > the optimization? So far we don't have much data to go on. > > From the orig post: "My benchmarks show decreased latency and a > performance boost of ~5% (on avg)" I remember that... so we are strictly speaking of response latency and response fulfillment metrics (as opposed to load?) 'Performance' was a little ambiguous, just want to confirm what we are measuring here :) > > There is talk of releasing some apr 1.5 enhancements. I'd > > personally favor adding skip list to apr rather than -util or > > httpd, since it could be useful core functionality, and 2.0 drops > > the distinction anyways. > > Fine, in fact, I agree that it "really" belongs in apr, > but it means that 2.4.7 will be required apr 1.5. > > Is the httpd PMC OK with that? I made the comment earlier that mod_ssl requiring openssl 0.9.8 in moving forward was fine. APR is a similar dependency. That said, we are maintaining binary compatibility because APR assures us that 1.5.x will maintain compatibility with 1.3.x/1.4.x. Plus we pick up apr unix domain socket support in the process for httpd. So I'm +1, I thought we did this during 2.2 (can't remember for certain) and throughout 2.0's lifespan we did this a number of times relative to apr 0.9. Others' thoughts?
