On Sep 26, 2013, at 10:20 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> 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 :) rps. > >>> 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? > Like I said, I think that skiplist fits better in APR; in fact there are a few other things in httpd that would be "better" in APR, but APR and httpd are 2 sep projects and so we can't "force" things. In fact, I'm adding dev@apr to the To: line :)
