On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:02 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> My chief concern was that the phrase "Common Log" has a specific meaning > to us. > > ap_mpm_common_log_startup() or something else descriptive would be a > better name, but our crew is famous for not being terrific namers of things > :) > > Did this compile with no warnings? It seems statics were used without > being explicitly initialized, and I don't have my copy of K&R to check that > these are always NULL, but guessing that's so. > yes; but ISTR that NetWare is the reason for explicit initialization in some of our multi-platform code; I dunno the rhyme > For clarity alone, I'd prefer these were initialized like every other > example they were adjacent to. > > > > > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> We are very close... I believe wrowe has some somewhat trivial >> reservations about it, but we are awaiting 1 more vote. >> >> Someone want to address wrowes concerns on trunk and patch >> the patch (stuff like naming)? I may have time next week. >> >> > On May 14, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Yingqi, >> > >> > 2 votes already (on 3), it makes its way ;) >> > >> > Regards, >> > Yann. >> > >> > >> > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Lu, Yingqi <yingqi...@intel.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> >> >> I just want to check if anyone gets chances to check the SO_REUSEPORT >> patch? Any feedback? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Yingqi >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Lu, Yingqi [mailto:yingqi...@intel.com] >> >> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 8:58 AM >> >> To: dev@httpd.apache.org >> >> Subject: RE: SO_REUSEPORT >> >> >> >> Hi Christophe, Jim and Yann, >> >> >> >> Thank you very much for your consideration of putting SO_REUSEPORT >> patch in the 2.4 stable release. >> >> >> >> I am also very happy that you find the white paper :-) All the most >> recent testing results are included in the white paper. Also, we have >> tested the (graceful) restart on the patch (previously, there was a bug.), >> it should be fine now. Please test it to confirm. >> >> >> >> Please let me know if you need anything else. Your help is appreciated. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Yingqi >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Yann Ylavic [mailto:ylavic....@gmail.com] >> >> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 5:02 AM >> >> To: httpd >> >> Subject: Re: SO_REUSEPORT >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Christophe JAILLET < >> christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Maybe, 2.4.14 could focus on reviewing/merging this patch and >> >>> associated performance improvement? >> >>> To help adoption, maybe an ASF server could be upgraded with a >> >>> SO_REUSEPORT patched version of Apache to have our own measurements >> >>> and see how it scales in a real world application. >> >> >> >> I did some testing with an injector at the time of the proposal (on a >> 2.2.x version of the patch, so mainly with worker), and can confirm that it >> really scales much better. >> >> Where httpd without SO_REUSEPORT stops accepting/handling connections, >> it continues to shine with the option/buckets enabled. >> >> (I don't have the numbers for now, need to search deeper, btw the ones >> from Intel are probably more of interest...) >> >> >> >> So regarding the upgrade on infra, the difference may not be obvious >> if the tested machine is not "at the limits". >> >> >> >> One thing that probably is worth testing is (graceful) restarts, >> though. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Yann. >> >> > -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
