On 11/18/2013 3:38 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Can you retry with this applied: > > https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1543174
Definitely. I'll report back tomorrow so long as the universe wills it... but one last note.... I failed to mention in my original notes that there were two hunks that didn't apply cleanly to 2.4.6 - these appear to be from this change: https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c?r1=1511313&r2=1511312&pathrev=1511313 ... which is in the neighborhood of what you adjusted in r1543174... but doesn't appear to conflict directly. I'm thinking I should also apply r1511313 to 2.4.6 as a prereq to r1543174 in order to remove ambiguity... I'm frankly not sure if the machine was performing DNS lookups during the test or not (and I have only given this a cursory review), but that would *definitely* account for a measurable slowdown. The context of what was rejected: > --- modules/proxy/proxy_util.c > +++ modules/proxy/proxy_util.c > @@ -2228,7 +2324,8 @@ > conn->port = uri->port; > } > socket_cleanup(conn); > - if (!worker->s->is_address_reusable || worker->s->disablereuse) { > + if (!(*worker->s->uds_path) && > + (!worker->s->is_address_reusable || > worker->s->disablereuse)) { > /* > * Only do a lookup if we should not reuse the backend > address. > * Otherwise we will look it up once for the worker. > @@ -2239,7 +2336,7 @@ > conn->pool); > } > } > - if (worker->s->is_address_reusable && !worker->s->disablereuse) { > + if (!(*worker->s->uds_path) && worker->s->is_address_reusable && > !worker->s->disablereuse) { > /* > * Looking up the backend address for the worker only makes > sense if > * we can reuse the address. I'll have to see what the delta with both patches applied turns out to be... -- Daniel Ruggeri
