yeah, I'm thinking /* * Figure out if our passed in proxy_conn_rec has a usable * address cached. * * TODO: Handle this much better... * * XXX: If generic workers are ever address-reusable, we need * to check host and port on the conn and be careful about * spilling the cached addr from the worker. */ if (!conn->hostname || !worker->s->is_address_reusable || worker->s->disablereuse || *worker->s->uds_path) { if (proxyname) { conn->hostname = apr_pstrdup(conn->pool, proxyname); conn->port = proxyport;
isn't right... On Nov 18, 2013, at 3:43 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > Hmm... maybe a re-use issue? Let me look. > > On Nov 18, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> I can think or see anything in the actual request handling >> aspect that's any different from the original proposal, >> certainly nothing that would result in any sort of >> performance issue. >> >> What MPM? Have you tried w/ 2.4.6? >> >> On Nov 18, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <drugg...@primary.net> wrote: >> >>> And... this is a bit discouraging, but as a comparison to the older UDS >>> patch.... >>> 2.4.6 + original UDS patch: >>> Requests/sec: 5347.17 >>> Requests/sec: 5102.16 >>> Requests/sec: 5074.15 >>> >>> This is a sizable difference... Note that the current 2.4 backport >>> proposal was applied to 2.4.6 since that is what I tested the original >>> patch with (to keep everything apples to apples). >>> >>> I'll jump in to take a look at this when time is available (next week?) >>> but would like to fish for any immediate thoughts in the mean time. >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Ruggeri >>> >>> On 11/18/2013 1:11 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: >>>> Oops - I copypasta'd the per-thread stats. Total stats for the test follow: >>>> httpd: >>>> Requests/sec: 4633.17 >>>> Requests/sec: 4664.49 >>>> Requests/sec: 4657.63 >>>> >>>> nginx: >>>> Requests/sec: 5701.16 >>>> Requests/sec: 5798.08 >>>> Requests/sec: 5584.60 >>> >> >